Grapeshot and 
••• C aniste r ••• 

ALLEN HILL AU'I'RY 




Book Al 

Copyiight N?. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



Grapeshot and Canister 



FROM THE ARSENAL OF TRUTH 
ON MISSION METHODS 



BY 

ALLEN HILL AUTRY 

•I 

Teacher-Evangelist ; Editor Doctrinal Interpreter ; Associate 

Editor Baptist Advance ; Associate Editor 

Baptist Forum 



WITH INTRODUCTION 

BY 

REVEREND BENJAMIN COX 

Pastor First Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arfc. 



THE DOCTRINAL INTERPRETER 

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 

1911 



^v 



Copyeight by ALLEN HILL ATJTRY 
1911 



©CI.A283300 



\ > INTRODUCTION. 

> 

It is with great joy and thanksgiving that I welcome 
the publication of this book. In my humble judgment no 
man in the State of Arkansas is better fitted for the great 
and important task which Bro. Autry has here assumed. 
I bespeak for it a very wide reading, not only among Ar- 
kansas Baptists, but among many others. All who are 
really interested in standing upon foundation principles 
can well afford to pay attention to it. Missionary Baptists 
are either right or wrong. If they are wrong, they should 
change their belief and practice. If they are right, they 
should be more zealous in propagating the principles for 
which they stand. 

In this book the claim is made that from the earliest 
times Baptists have had conventions and associations in 
their denominational work, very much as we have them 
today. Arkansas Baptists are in a position to be greatly 
helped by this timely discussion. 

It is apparent that great distress has come to individ- 
uals and churches, because of the extravagant and unbibli- 
cal position taken by many people. 

Extremists have strained at gnats and swallowed camels 
in this regard. Every Baptist ought to be well acquainted 
with the history of his own denomination. Surely, Mis- 
sionary Baptists have great cause to thank God and take 

3 



4 Orapeshot and Canister 

courage when they read the early history of their brethren 
in the faith. 

It is a fact conceded by prominent historians, other than 
Baptists, that the Christian world owes a great debt to 
Baptists for the religious liberty which they enjoy. 

It is my hope and prayer that Bro. Autry's faithful 
labors may be rewarded by a very extensive circulation of 
this book, and that great good may be done wherever it is 
read. Benjamin Cox, 

Pastor, First Baptist Church. 

Little Eock, Ark. 



CONTENTS. 

Page. 
Introduction, by Rev. Ben. Cox 3 

Scripture Argument 7 

Conventions and Associations, Historical Argument. . 29 

Landmarkism an Innovation 63 

Headed Toward Hardshellism, Tom Watson and 
Others Reviewed 91 

The Landmark Secession 137 

Addenda: Why Clark, Scarboro, Milburn and Ben. 
M. Bogard Left the Convention 146 



CHAPTER I. 
The Scripture Argument. 

The missionary enterprise originated in heaven, 
prompted by infinite love. Eph. 1 :3-12 ; Jno. 3 :16. It was 
dimly disclosed to our first parents in the garden of Eden, 
soon after the fall, Gen. 3:15; more fully developed to 
x\bram in the promise that in his Seed, Christ, should "all 
the families of the earth be blessed." Gen. 12 :l-2, 22 :18 ; 
Gal. 3:6. This missionary spirit was still more clearly 
revealed by Jehovah to the Prophets in successive promises. 
Psa. 2:8; Isa. 2:2; 35:1; 54:2-3; 60:1-10; 61:1-3; 66:8; 
Dan. 7:27; 12.4; Hab. 2:14. Thus promise after promise 
was given from time to time, more fully developing the 
origin and purpose of missions, until the Son of Righteous- 
ness himself arose upon our world, and the angel appeared 
to the astonished shepherds on the plains of Bethlehem, 
saying : "Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of 
great joy, which shall be to ALL people/' Lu. 2 :10-11. 

To this end our Lord announced at the beginning of 
His missionary labors that the "Son of man is come to 
seek and to save that which was lost." Lu. 19:10. He 
proclaimed that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be 
preached in all the world, for a witness to all nations, and 
then shall the end come." Matt. 24 :14. From the very 
beginning the New Testament church wa6 a missionary 

7 



8 Grapeshot and Canister 

church. When Christ constituted his church of the dis- 
ciples of John the Baptist He declared that he would make 
them "fishers of men/' Matt. 4:18-22. Afterward He 
called the twelve and sent them forth as missionaries to 
preach the gospel of the kingdom. Matt. 10:1-7; Mark 
3 :13-14. 

Later He sent out seventy evangelists into every city 
and place whither He himself should go. Luke 10:1-10. 
And, finally, He gave His disciples the world-wide commis- 
sion, Matt. 28:19-20, and bade them tarry at Jerusalem 
for witness-hearing power. Luke 24 :48-49 ; Acts 1 :8. 
He made them missionaries when He said, GO, and He 
made them missionary preachers when he said, GO, 
PEEACH THE GOSPEL; and he made them Mission- 
ary Baptist Preachers when he said, GO, PEEACH and 
BAPTIZE; and he made them world-wide Missionary 
Baptists when he said, GO INTO ALL THE WOBLD. 
make disciples of all the nations, baptize and teach; and 
He made it impossible for them to work in the wrong 
place when He said, GO into all the world; and he made 
it impossible for them to leave out anybody when He said : 
Preach the gospel to every creature; and He made it their 
duty to train them for service when He said : Teach them 
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; 
and He made it impossible for them to be lonely when He 
said : Lo, I am with you all the days, even to the end of 
the age; and He made it impossible for this Missionary 
enterprise to fail when He said: "Upon this Bock I will 
build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it." Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Matt. 16: 
18; and He gave them the privilege of using any method 



The Scripture Argument 9 

in the prosecution of the missionary enterprise which 
would be in harmony with the spirit of their mission when 
He said: "GO INTO ALL THE WORLD," without giving 
them specific directions as to HOW to GO. 

THE CHURCH AND A CALLED MINISTRY 

of course, were His chief agents in the prosecution of all 
missionary enterprises. (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-17; 
1 Cor. 12:28-29; Matt. 28:19-20; Matt. 10:1-10; Luke 
10:1-12; Acts 13:1-3; Rom. 10:13-15; 1 Cor. 9:1-14.) 
They were not tied up, however, to any given method of 
reaching the nations. When they thought best they made 
division of the territory according to the adaptation of the 
workers : 

"And when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be 
pillars, perceived the grace that was given nnto me, they 
gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship 
that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the cir- 
cumcision." (Gal. 2:9.) 

For convenience they were allowed to divide their work 
into City, State, Home and Foreign Missions: 

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit 
has come upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses unto me both 
in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto 
the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8.) 

Churches co-operated with each other at will, and by 
their own methods. Sometimes they communicated with 
each other by means of traveling agents : 

"And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise 
is in the gospel throughout all the churches." (2 Cor. 
8:18.) 



10 Grapeshot and Canister 

"But I have all, and abound ; I am full, having received 
of Epahproditus the things which were sent from you, an 
odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing 
to God/' (Phil. 4:18.) 

Sometimes they used boards as means of co-operation 
between churches : 

"Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and 
fellow-helper concerning you; or our brethren be enquired 
of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory 
of Christ." (2 Cor. 8:23.) 

This Board handled the funds sent by the churches : 

"And we have sent with Titus the brother, whose praise 
is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and not that 
only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel 
with us with this contribution, which is administered by 
us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your 
ready mind/' (2 Cor. 8:18-19.) 

The churches were requested by the Apostle to report to 
this board, and to demonstrate their love for the cause by 
their gifts : 

"Wherefore show ye to them (the Board which handled 
the funds), and before the churches, the proof of your love, 
and of our boasting on your behalf." (2 Cor. 8:24.) 

They had a Corresponding Secretary, who urged them 
to make ready their gifts and turn the same over to the 
Board whose duty it was to handle such funds : 

"For as touching the ministry to the saints, it is super- 
fluous for me to write to you; for I know the forwardness 
of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Mace- 
donia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal 
hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, 



The Scripture Argument 11 

lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; 
that, as I said, ye may be ready." (2 Cor. 9 :l-3.) 

They had a Superintendent of Missions, who in love 
had the care of all the churches in respect to mission work, 
and who sent men to visit the churches whenever he thought 
it would promote the cause of Christ : 

"And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise 
is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and we have 
SENT with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes 
proved diligent in many things, but now much more dili- 
gent, upon the great confidence which I have in you." (2 
Cor. 8:18, 22.) 

"Besides those things that are without, that which 
cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." (2 
Cor. 11:28.) 

Sometimes the Corresponding Secretary would write 
them and appeal to their denominational pride, and send 
some agent to stir them up by the example of others : "For 
I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast 
of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a 
year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet 
have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should 
be in vain in this behalf ; that, as I said, ye may be ready ; 
lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me. and find 
vou unprepared, we (that we say not ye) should be 
ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore, I 
thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they 
would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your 
contribution, whereof ye had notice before, that the same 
might be ready, as a matter of bounty and not as of covet- 
ousness." (2 Cor. 9:2-5.) 



12 Grapeshot and Canister 

Sometimes an enterprise would be launched by an in- 
dividual, and he would go of his own accord and stir up 
the churches: 

"But thanks be to God who put the same earnest care 
into the heart of Titus for you, for indeed he accepted the 
exhortation; and being more forward, of his own accord 
he went unto you." (2 Cor. 8:16-17.) 

Sometimes the Church would take the initiative: 

"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the 
Church, which was at Jerusalem ; and they sent forth Bar- 
nabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11 :22.) 

Sometimes the preachers and teachers, the leaders of the 
Church, would take the first step and arouse the churches 
to a sense of their duty : 

"Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, 
certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon 
that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, 
who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and 
Saul; as THEY ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the 
Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the 
work whereunto I have called them. And when THEY 
had fasted and prayed, and laid THEIB hands on them, 
THEY sent them away/*' (Acts 13 :l-3.) 

Sometimes missionaries would be sent out by a Board 
of Missions, and the churches would be asked to support 
them while on the mission field : 

"And when James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed 
to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, 
they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellow- 
ship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto 
the circumcision." (Gal. 2:9.) 



The Scripture Argument 13 

"I robbed Other churches, taking WAGES of them to do 
you service. And when I was present with you and want- 
ed, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lack- 
ing to me the brethren which came from Macedonia 
(Board of Missions, 2 Cor. 8:23) supplied/' (2 Cor. 
12:8-9.) 

Sometimes an individual would appoint a missionary 
and assign him his field ; and that, too, on his own motion : 

"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus for to seek Saul; 
and when he had found him, he brought him unto Anti- 
och. And it came to pass that a whole year they assem- 
bled themselves with the church, and taught much people." 
(Acts 11:24-25.) "Then came he to Derbe and Lystra; 
and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timo- 
theus, HIM would Paul have to go forth with him." 
(Acts 16:1-3.) 

Sometimes the missionaries would adopt their own plans 
and places of work, and choose their own helpers : 

"And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us 
go again and visit our brethren in every city where we 
have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 
And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose 
surname was Mark. But Saul thought not good to take 
him with them, who parted from them from Pamphilia, 
and went not with them to the work. And the contention 
was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one 
from the other; and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed 
unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed," etc. 
(Acts 15 :36-41.) 

Sometimes the Corresponding Secretary would recom- 
mend a religious worker to the churches, and insist that 



14 Grapeshot and Canister 

they help the work on the plea that said Christian worker 
had been a great help to the Secretary : 

"I commend unto yon Phebe onr sister, who is a servant 
of the Church which is at Cenchrea; that ye receive her 
in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in 
whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath 
been a succurer of many, and of mvself also." (Eom. 16 : 
1-3.) 

"But I trust in the Lord to send Timotheus shortly unto 
you, that I also may be of good comfort when I hear of 
your state; for I have no man likeminded who will natu- 
rally care for your state. Yet I supposed it necessary to 
send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in 
labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that 
ministered to my wants." (Phil. 2 :19, 20, 25.) "All my 
state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is my beloved 
brother, and a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the 
Lord: whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, 
that he might know your state, and comfort your hearts." 
(Col. 4:7, 8.) 

Sometimes the Corresponding Secretary would send 
agents to win them to the plans which he had adopted, 
which he thought best for the progress of the churches : 

"Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent 
unto you ? I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. 
Did Titus make a gain of you? Walked we not in the 
same spirit? Walked we not in the same steps?" (2 Cor. 
12:17, 18.) 

In New Testament times the Corresponding Secretary 
never apologized for his position, but he taught them that 
what he did was for their good and edification: "Think 



The Scripture Argument 15 

ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? We speak before 
God in Christ; but we do all things, dearly beloved, for 
your edifying." (2 Cor. 12:19.) 

New Testament churches co-operated on the numerical 
basis in their conventions; small churches might have 
three or four messengers, while churches numbering thou- 
sands were represented by all the members present: 

"When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dis- 
sension and disputation with them, they determined that 
Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go 
up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this 
question. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they 
were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and El- 
ders, and they declared all things that God had done with 
them. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the 
whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company 
to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas/' etc. (Acts 15:2, 
4, 22.) 

The method adopted by some crude Baptists of late in 
allowing a church of fifty members to be represented by 
as many messengers as a church of five thousand mem- 
bers, is both unfair and unscriptural. 

New Testament Churches were taught to support their 
ministry, and to help in every laudable enterprise : 

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they who preach 
the gospel should live of the gospel." (1 Cor. 9:14.) 
"Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto 
him that teacheth in all good things." (Gal. 6:6.) 

They would sometimes make appropriations for the 
most needy fields, going sometimes beyond their ability in 
helping the churches : 



16 Grapeshot and C (mister 

"For to their power I bear record, yea, and beyond their 
power, they were willing of themselves; praying us with 
much entreaty that we would receive the contribution, 
and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the 
saints." (2 Cor. 8:3, 4.) 

They were taught to provide for this fund by regular 
weekly offerings: 

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I 
have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do 
ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you 
lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there 
be no gatherings when I come/' (1 Cor. 16: 1, 2.) 

But when the churches failed to make their weekly 
offerings, the Corresponding Secretary would send Agents 
of his own choosing to arouse them to duty, and to take 
their offerings; sometimes they were willing, but they 
were neglectful and inactive, and it was necessary for one 
who was absorbed in the work to stir up their pure minds 
by way of remembrance : 

"For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which 
I boast to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a 
year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet 
have I SENT the brethren, lest our boasting of you 
should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may 
be ready. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the 
brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make 
up beforehand your contribution, that the same might be 
ready." (2 Cor. 9:1-5.) 

The churches were also expected to pay the traveling 
expenses of their general Agents: "And then immedi- 
ately the brethren sent away Paul; and they that con- 



The Scripture Argument 17 

ducted him brought him to Athens/' (Acts 17:14, 15.) 
"Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to 
you; for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be 
BKOUGHT on my way thitherward by YOU." (Rom, 
15 :24.) "And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter 
with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whitherso- 
ever I go." (1 Cor. 16:6.) 

Sometimes the Corresponding Secretary himself han- 
dled the funds which had been collected by the churches, 
just as they do sometimes today: 

"But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the 
saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia to make 
a certain contribution for the poor saints who are at 
Jerusalem; when, therefore, I have performed this, and 
have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into 
Spain/' (Rom. 15:25-28.) 

The churches in those days were expected to give their 
ministers "HIRE," and to pay them "WAGES/' so as to 
support them without stint : 

"The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few: 
pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he would 
send forth laborers into his harvest; for the laborer is 
worthy of his HIRE/' (Luke 10:2, 7.) 

"I robbed other churches, taking WAGES of them to 
do you service." (2 Cor. 11:8.) 

New Testament missionaries claimed the right to exact 
sufficient support to forbear working both for themselves 
and their families, but sometimes they denied themselves 
this right and privilege and did not demand it, because 
of the prejudice and weakness of some of their brethren 
who might charge them with mercenary motives : 



IS Qrapeskot and Canister 

"Mine answer to those that do examine me is this: 
Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not 
power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other 
Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 
Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear 
working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own 
charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of 
the fruit thereof? Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not 
of the milk of the flock? If others be partakers of this 
power over you, are not we rather ? Nevertheless, we have 
not used this power; but SUFFER all things, lest we 
should hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor. 9:3-12, 14.) 

Such ignorance and prejudice among professed Chris- 
tians the Apostle once winked at, but it is inexcusable for 
men and women in this age of the world. All this howl 
about mercenary Boards and Conventions and preachers, 
and all these charges of the misappropriation of money by 
religious bodies, made for the most part by men who, by 
their own conduct, have lost leadership in the denomina- 
tion, are born either of malice or prejudice, or both, cer- 
tainly not of ignorance. In this age when a Bible may 
be had for five cents, or for nothing, and numerous 
religious books at a nominal price, such leadership (?) is 
criminal. And no lawful words are too strong to con- 
demn such a course. When would-be leaders studiously 
plan to create prejudice in the minds of the uninformed 
and the unwary, and then appeal to that prejudice to mis- 
lead, and to create false impressions, such a course is 
unthinkable for Christian gentlemen. There is no lan- 
guage too strong in which to describe it; no colors too 
dark in which to paint it; no measure* too radical by 



The Scripture Argument 19 

which to condemn it; no pit too deep to which to con- 
sign it; and no moment too inopportune in which to urge 
people to flee from such leadership. But in spite of the 
efforts of the Corresponding Secretary, the Evangelists, 
and Agents, and Messengers, and every class of Christian 
workers, such as Sister Phebe, and brethren Titus and 
Timothy, et al., in spite of the constant appeals to their 
denominational pride and the work of their fellow 
churches; in spite of it all, many of the New Testament 
churches were laggards, and would not help at all in 
denominational work. Such churches would use the 
Evangelist freely without a collection, while the faithful 
churches were "robbed" to foot the bills : "I robbed other 
churches, taking wages of them to do YOU service." 
(2 Cor. 11:8.) They may have objected to the "hired" 
evangelist, or to the "wage" earning preachers, or to the 
"•aiary of the travelling Agents, or to their travelling 
expenses, or to the methods employed in their missionary 
operations, or what not; whatever might have been their 
plea for their denominational indifference, still the fact 
remains that they were not helpers, if the Apostle's word 
is to be relied on. Hence the Apostle drew the line of 
demarkation, and declared that such churches "were 
inferior to other churches, because he had preached to 
them the gospel without a contribution" (2 Cor. 11 :7, 13), 
and he asked them to "forgive him of this wrong." These 
laggard, indifferent, do-nothing churches, were usually the 
most ungrateful churches, just as it is today : "For what 
is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except 
it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive 
me this wrong. And I will very gladly spend and be 



20 Grapeshot and Canister 

spent for you ; though the more abundantly I LOVE YOU, 
the LESS I be loved." (2 Cor. 12:13, 15.) 

The church which would not help in the denominational 
enterprises was accounted an "inferior church" in those 
days; it is so today. The churches of today, as in New 
Testament times, which do the least to help in any 
denominational enterprise, are the most ready to cast 
reproachful aspersions on those who do the most, the 
quickest to pronounce every aggressive movement an 
innovation. It has ever been so. At one time it seems 
that every church in Macedonia, except one church only, 
refused to adopt the missionary plans of their Superin- 
tendent of Missions. To that faithful church their Cor- 
responding Secretary wrote an endearing letter, congratu- 
lating them upon their firm and loyal stand with him in 
all their missionary enterprises : 

"Now ye Philippians know also that in the beginning 
of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church 
communicated with me as concerning giving and receiv- 
ing, but ye only." (Phil. 4:15.) 

But as a faithful Corresponding Secretary he continued 
to write to these delinquent churches, and send them 
financial Agents; and, with reproofs and rebukes, with 
tender appeals, and with all the enthusiasm of his mission- 
ary soul, by his doctrinal instruction and his heavenly 
zeal, he tried to set them on fire for God and the cause of 
missions. (1 Cor. 15:57-16:3; 9:1-14; 2 Cor. 8:1-23; 
9:1-7; Gal. 6:6.) 

Paul gave the churches specific instructions on the grace 
of giving, needed as much today, in some parts, as then: 



The Scripture Argument 21 

1. They were to give individually : "Let every one of 
you lay by him in store." (1 Cor. 16:2.) 

2. They were to give systematically: "Upon the first 
day of the week." 

3. They were to give proportionately: "As God has 
prospered him." 

4. They were to give bountifully: "He which soweth 
bountifully, shall reap also bountifully." (2 Cor. 9:6, 7.) 

5. They were to give purposefully: "Every man ac- 
cording as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give." 

6. They were to give liberally: "Not grudgingly, or 
of necessity." 

7. They were to give cheerfully: "For God loveth a 
cheerful giver." 

They were taught to give from right motives: 

1. They were to give and serve from the principle of 
love : 

"If ye love me, keep my commandents." (Jno. 14:15.) 
"The love of Christ constraineth us." (2 Cor. 5:14.) 

2. They were to give out of gratitude to God : 

"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, 
that ye through his poverty might be rich. Now there- 
fore perform the doing of it; that, as there was a readi- 
ness to will, so there may be a performance also out of 
that which ye have. For if there be first a willing mind, 
it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not 
according to that he hath not." (2 Cor. 8:9-12.) 

3. They should be moved to give by the example of 
others : 

"Moreover, brethren, we must inform you of the gtace 



22 Grapeshot and Canister 

of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; how that 
in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and 
their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their lib- 
erality. For to their power I bear record, yea, and beyond 
their power, they were willing of themselves; praying us 
with much entreaty that we would receive the contribu- 
tion, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering 
to the saints ; and this they did, not as we hoped, but first 
gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the 
will of God. Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he 
had begun, so he would also finish in you the same con- 
tribution also. Therefore, as ye abound in everything, in 
faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in 
your love for us, see that ye abound in this grace also. 
/ speak not by comandment, but by occasion, of the for- 
wardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your 
love." (2 Cor. 8:1-8.) 

"For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which 
I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was 
ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. 
Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you 
should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may 
be ready: lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, 
and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, YE) should 
be ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore I 
thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they 
would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your 
bounty." (2 Cor. 9:1-7.) 

4. The hope of a bountiful harvest, splendid returns, 
great results, should prompt us to sacrificial giving: 

"Give, and it shall be given you; good measure, pressed 



Tlie Scripture Argument 23 

down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men 
give into your BOSOM, for with the same measure that 
ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." (Luke 
6:38.) 

"There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there 
is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to 
poverty. The liberal soul shall be made fat; and he that 
watereth shall be watered also himself. (Pfov. 11:24, 25.) 

5. Christians should give of their means, because 
Christian giving honors God: 

"Thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he 
that giveth thee power to get wealth." (Deut. 8:18.) 

"Them that honor Me, I will honor, and they that 
despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." (1 Sam. 2:30.) 

"Honor the Lord with thy substance, and with the first 
fruits of all thine increase: so shall thy barns be filled 
with plenty." (Prov. 3:9, 10.) 

"Eemember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said 
(Lu. 6:38) : It is more blessed to give than to receive." 
(Acts 20:35.) 

"Freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt. 10:8.) 

"The Lord hath ordained that they who preach the 
Gospel should live of the Gospel." (1 Cor. 9 :14.) 

6. We should give of our means to Christian work be- 
cause Christian giving inures to a growth in grace. 

If one is lean and unfruitful religiously, other things 
being equal, his barrenness might be accounted for by 
the stagnation of his liberality. Christian liberality is 
one law of Christian growth : 

"But this I say: He which soweth sparingly shall 
reap also sparingly : and he which soweth bountifully shall 



24 Grapeshot and Canister 

reap also bountifully. Every man according as he pur- 
posed in his heart, SO LET HIM GIVE; not grudg- 
ingly, or of necessity ; for God loveth a cheerful giver. And 
God is able to make all grace abound toward you ; that ye, 
always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to 
every good work; as it is written: He hath dispersed 
abroad, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness re- 
maineth forever. Now he that ministereth seed to the 
sower, both minister bread for your food, and multiply 
your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your right- 
eousness. Being enriched in every thing to all liberality, 
which causeth through us thanksgiving to God. For the 
administration of this service not only supplieth the want 
of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings 
unto God; whiles by the experiment of this ministration 
they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the 
gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto 
them, and unto all men; and by their prayer for you, 
which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in 
you. Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift." 
(2 Cor. 9:6-15.) 

7. We should give of our means to support the cause 
of Christ, because our Lord has declared that systematic 
giving is a good antidote for the boll-weevil or the crop- 
destroyer : 

"Will a man rob God ? Yet ye have robbed Me. But ye 
say : Wherein have we robbed Thee ? In tithes and offer- 
ings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed 
Me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into 
the storehouse, that there may be meat in Mine house, 
and prove Me now HEREWITH, saith the Lord of hosts, 



The Scripture Argument 25 

if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour yon 
out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to 
receive it. And I will EEBUKE THE DEVOURER 
FOR YOUR SAKES, and he shall not destroy the fruits 
of your ground, and all nations shall call you blessed. " 
(Mai. 3:8-12.) 

Christian giving for world-wide evangelism is one of 
our cardinal doctrines which must not be overlooked. For 
there can be no church perpetuity where the Gospel is not 
preached, and where disciples are not made and baptized, 
and taught to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever He 
hath commanded. This is a distinctive Baptist prin- 
ciple. Because Baptists are the only denomination which 
stands for the WHOLE COMMISSION*, in the order 
given. They might be appropriately called the ALL de- 
nomination, for they are the only ecclesiastical body that 
gives proper emphasis to all the ALLS of the great com- 
mission. (Matt. 28:19, 20.) With loyal Baptists the 
commission can no more be mutilated than Christ can be 
mutilated with impunity. Preaching the whole Gospel 
to every creature, making disciples of ALL nations, bap- 
tizing ALL the disciples, and teaching them to observe 
ALL THINGS whatsoever Christ has commanded, is a 
Baptist distinctive peculiarity. The whole truth to the 
whole world, is our motto. In this liberal age, when so 
many are inclined to treat lightly, if they do not leave out 
entirely, the second and third parts of the great commis- 
sion, we need to throw upon this truth an added emphasis. 
There are professed followers of Jesus all over our land 
in all our churches who need to have burned into their 
hearts, as a profound and soul-stirring conviction, the 



26 Grapeshot and Canister 

Apostolic doctrine of the Divine obligation of the mis- 
sionary enterprise. Don't lose sight of the fact that the 
doctrine of a WHOLE commission to a WHOLE world 
is pre-eminently a Baptist distinctive doctrine. A plea 
for a regenerated church-membership and loyalty to 
Christ in all things, are the stars which have shone most 
brightly in the firmament of Baptist history. We are not 
at liberty to emphasize one part of the commission to the 
disparagement of the other. Since the days of Christ on 
earth, our slogan has been: The blood before baptism, 
and salvation before service. Just here is to be seen the 
Baptist peculiarity. But in our contention about the 
WAY it is to be done, we sometimes lose sight of the 
WOBK to BE done. In their war over METHODS some 
have practically surrendered the WORK itself. In their 
contention for METHODS they have contracted an abhor- 
rence for MISSIONS. Early in the past century there came 
into our churches a contention over missions and mission 
methods. It was pre-eminently a doctrinal struggle. At first 
the brethren said they believed in missions, but were opposed 
to the METHODS adopted. Later, as a natural conse- 
quence of their contention, they came to oppose MIS- 
SIONS. Thus a new doctrinal system was of necessity 
evolved to suit their new contention. In the minds of 
some the mysteries of God's sovereignty and electing grace 
shut out from view the obligation of the great commis- 
sion. One great doctrine of the Word was allowed to 
obscure from their vision, and ultimately to set aside, 
another great doctrine of the Word, that touched the 
progress of Christ's kingdom at a most vital point. For 
nearly a quarter of a century the battle raged, but the 



The Scripture Argument 27 

victory was won on the side of the great commission. 
The gospel of GRACE, together with the gospel of GO 
INTO ALL THE WORLD, won the day over the gospel 
of Grace without the gospel of GO. It is so today, and will 
ever be so. In the San Gorgonian Pass that opens the way 
through the high Sierras to Southern California, on either 
side rises a mountain peak. Each towers to its 14,000 
feet and each wears its snowy crown. As the handiwork 
of God each vies with the other, as they reflect the glory 
of the morning sunlight or change into an hundred hues 
the mellow twilight of the closing day. Who doubts that 
these apparently opposing peaks rest upon the same bed- 
rock foundation of the Sierran system? And who would 
hide himself at the foot of the one and lose the splendid 
vision of the other? So in the mountain range of God's 
doctrinal system there rise grand truths that pierce into 
the heavens beyond the stars. Here rises from the bed- 
rock of Holy Scripture the doctrine of God's sovereign 
and electing grace. Yonder, from the bedrock of the 
same Scripture, there towers beside it the glory of a salva- 
tion we are commanded to take to ALL the world and 
preach to EVERY CREATURE, accompanied with the 
divine assurance that "whosoever WILL" may accept. 
RECEIVE it (Jno. 1:12), and be saved. Who is there 
who would seclude himself beside the mountain-peak of 
one of these truths and lose the peace and glory of the 
other ? It is the duty of every loyal Baptist to bring into 
the clearer vision of all our churches both these high 
mountain-peaks of revealed truth, namely: Salvation by 
grace through faith, and WORLD-WIDE MISSIONS. 



28 Grapeshot and Canister 

"I would be true, for there are those who trust me ; 

I would be pure, for there are those who care: 
I would be strong, for there is much to suffer ; 

I would be brave, for there is much to dare. 
I would be friend of all — the foe, the friendless ; 

I would be giving and forget the gift; 
I would be humble, for I know my weakness ; 

I would look up — and laugh — and love — and lift." 



CHAPTER II. 
Conventions and Associations. 

"Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye in the ways, and see, 
and ask for the OLD PATHS, where is the good way, and 
walk therein. But they said: We will NOT WALK 
therein." (Jer. 6:16.) 

From the earliest times, Baptists have had Conventions 
and Associations in their denominational work, very much 
as we have them today. As a matter of course, these 
Conventions and Associations have had no control what- 
ever over the churches, nor could they have. In the very 
nature of the case, no outside body such as an Association 
or a Convention can exercise the least authority over the 
least Baptist church in the world. This was true of New 
Testament churches; it is also true of Baptist churches. 
In this respect New Testament and Baptist churches are 
identical. But as there were those in olden times who 
said they would not "walk in the good old ways," so it is 
today. In every age of the church there are to be found 
those who are not satisfied with the good old way, but 
who are spending all their energies searching out the 
NEW PATHS and crying down the "Old Paths." 

29 



30 Orapeshot and Canister 

TERMS DEFINED. 

The word ASSOCIATION is from AD : to, and SOCIO : 
to unite together. "The act of associating, uniting, or 
joining together. The state of being so associated, united, 
or joined together. An aggregate of persons or things 
associated together. A society of any kind; persons in 
union with each other for any purpose, civil or ecclesiasti- 
cal."— Universal Dictionary. The word CONVENTION 
is from CON : together, and VENIO : to come, to come 
together. "An ASSEMBLY, a meeting; an agreement, 
a compact. The act of coming together or assembling; 
the state of being assembled. Those who there meet. The 
act of coming together. The state of being brought to- 
gether." — Universal Dictionary. So when an association 
meets it is a convention, and when a convention convenes 
it is "an aggregate of persons associated together/' there- 
fore it is an association. The association of an association 
which never associates is like the convention of a conven- 
tion that never convenes. All this present-day talk of 
the Defectives about the Associations being the SERV- 
ANTS, while Conventions are the BOSSES of the 
churches, is a play on words unwarranted by the facts in 
the case. It is the demagogue's appeal to the prejudice of 
honest but uninformed brethren, many of whom are just 
a little sensitive on the money question to start with : it 
is clearly the plea of designing ecclesiastical politicians 
who have an end to serve in arraying the country brethren 
against the town brethren. Such a course should be con- 
demned by every one who loves our common cause. Such 
appeals, as might be expected, are usually made by those 



Conventions and Associations 31 

who have lost their standing as leaders in the Conventions 
and Associations, and justly so. 

Such a course is unworthy the Christian ministry. But 
such men are being rapidly relegated to the rear by the 
sturdy, honest, conservative, Christian yeomanry of the 
country, and their tribe is growing gloriously smaller day 
by day. Why these men should spend the best of their 
lives in Conventions with their Boards and Corresponding 
Secretaries, and then suddenly find out that Boards and 
Secretaries and Conventions are godless and unscriptural, 
is a great mystery to many people. But it is not so great 
a mystery to those who are at all acquainted with the 
history of innovations. It has ever been so with a certain 
class of eccentrics. Such men cannot be relied on for safe 
leadership. 

PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY. 

It is claimed by the "Landmarkers," as they choose to 
call themselves, or Gospel Missioners, that Conventionism 
is an innovation which seeks to usurp the rights -of the 
churches and that, therefore, conventionism is unscrip- 
tural. But the facts show that those who are accounted 
the most orthodox leaders by the Landmarkers themselves 
were affiliated the most of their lives with the Conven- 
tions. In Pillars of Orthodoxy, a book written by Ben M. 
Bogard, now Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, the Organ 
of the Landmarkers of Arkansas, who was also the Mod- 
erator of the General Association of the United States, a 
short biography of seventeen of the leading men, together 
with a representative sermon from each, is given. Accord- 
ing to Editor Bogard these men, above all others, are en- 



32 Grapeshot and Canister 

titled to be called the Pillars of Orthodoxy. He says: 
"This book is a history, an album, and a collection of the 
choicest sermons and essays. It is a history of our 
GEEAT LEADEES who have fought hard and long for 
BIBLE PEINCIPLES AND BIBLE DOCTEINES, and 
by their consecrated, and, in some instances, heroic lives, 
have shown themselves to be WOETHY of the title: 
PILLAES OF OETHODOXY. ... It is a pleasure 
to present to the public a volume containing the YEEY 
CEEAM of the best thought from the STEONGEST 
MEN in the Baptist denomination."— (Introduction to 
Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 9, 10.) 

It will doubtless be amazing to some of our modern 
"Landmark" brethren to learn that these very men whom 
Editor Bogard declares were the "great leaders who fought 
hard and long for Bible Principles and Bible Doctrines/' 
and who are the "strongest men in the Baptist Denomi- 
nation," that they ALL gave the very best of their lives 
to the Southern Baptist Convention, or to some Conven- 
tion or Association which had either the money basis or 
the numerical basis. Even J. N. Hall, who the last year 
or two of his life was a leader in the New Movement 
among the MODEEN Landmarkers, was, even as late as 
1902 and 1905, a member of the Southern Baptist Con- 
vention on the money basis. See Minutes of the Southern 
Baptist Convention for 1902. Is it not strange that these 
"great leaders in Bible principles and Bible doctrines" did 
not find out that Conventions were innovations among 
Baptists ? 

A. C. Dayton, author of Theodosia Earnest, affiliated with 
the Georgia and Tennessee Conventions on the money and 



Conventions and Associations 33 

numerical basis, with their Boards and Corresponding 
Secretaries — the very things which Editor Bogard and a 
few Modern Landmarkers denounce as unscriptural and 
corrupt. Eichard Fuller affiliated with the Maryland Con- 
vention on the money and numerical basis. William 
Vaughan, with the Kentucky Association on the numerical 
basis. A. P. Williams, than whom there was not to be 
found among Baptists a greater scriptorian, affiliated with 
the State Association of Missouri on the money basis. 
J. P. Boyce, one of the founders of the Southern Baptist 
Theological Seminary, many times elected President of 
the Southern Baptist Convention, of whom Bogard says: 
"Dr. Boyce was a sound Baptist, a Pillar of ORTHO- 
DOXY/' affiliated with the Virginia Association on the 
money basis. Major W. E. Penn, one of the safest and 
most successful of modern evangelists, affiliated with the 
Texas Convention on the money basis, and with the 
Arkansas Baptist State Convention on the numerical basis. 
J. B. Moody, known by everyone as one of our greatest, 
if not the greatest, living Bible exegetes, affiliates with 
the Tennessee Convention on the numerical basis. T. T. 
Eaton, Editor of the Western Recorder, pastor of one of 
the largest Baptist churches in the South, and admittedly 
the greatest Baptist editor in the world, gave the very 
best of his life to the Kentucky Association on the numeri- 
cal basis. J. R. Graves, whose orthodoxy on the funda- 
mentals of our faith no one will have the temerity to dis- 
pute, affiliated with the Tennessee Convention and the 
Southern Baptist Convention on the numerical and money 
basis. J. B. Jeter, with the Virginia Association on the 
money basis. S. H. Ford, the old man eloquent, and one 



34 Orapeshot and Canister 

of the ripest scholars amongst us, was with the Missouri 
Association on the money basis. J. M. Pendleton was in 
the organization of the Kentucky Association, which was 
put then and is now on the numerical basis. John A. 
Broadus, President of the Southern Baptist Theological 
Seminary, and considered in his day the best Greek 
Scholar in the world, affiliated with the Virginia and 
Kentucky Associations on the money and the numerical 
basis. J. S. Coleman, with Kentucky Association on the 
numerical basis. John T. Christian, one of the greatest 
living Baptist redactors, an author of no mean ability, 
has affiliated with the Kentucky Association and the 
Arkansas Baptist State Convention on the numerical basis. 
W. P. Harvey, former manager of the Baptist Book Con- 
cern, President and Manager of the Baptist World Com- 
pany, affiliates with the Kentucky Association on the 
numerical basis. J. N. Hall, until within a few years of 
his death affiliated with the State Association of Kentucky 
on the numerical basis, and with the Southern Baptist 
Convention, 1902 and 1905, on the money basis. This 
was after the organization of the Landmark Association. 
(Minutes of Southern Baptist Convention for 1902, p. 48, 
and letter to the author from Secretary of the Southern 
Baptist Convention.) And Ben. M. Bogard, author of 
PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY and Editor of the Arkan- 
sas Baptist, the organ of the modern Landmarkers, and 
Moderator of the General Association, 1909, affiliated with 
the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, and as late as 1900 
was himself a member of the Southern Baptist Conven- 
tion on the MONEY basis. (See Minutes of the Southern 
Baptist Convention for 1900, p. 52.) 



Conventions and Associations 36 

CONVENTIONISM IS NOT AN INNOVATION. 

The Nebraska Convention was organized in 1868, 42 
years ago, to take the place of the Domestic Mission Board. 
Minnesota Convention was organized in 1861, 49 years 
ago. Florida Convention was organized in 1854, 56 years 
ago. Iowa Baptist General Association was organized in 
1842, 68 years ago, and the name was changed to the 
Iowa Baptist State Convention in 1851, 59 years ago. 
Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas Conventions were organ- 
ized in 1848, 62 years ago. From the data we have in 
hand we learn that the Arkansas Baptist State Conven- 
tion, as early as 1867, 43 years ago, had a Missionary 
Board, which was called the Arkansas Baptist State Mis- 
sion Board, located at Little Bock, with nineteen mem- 
bers, five constituting a quorum. In 1879, 31 years ago, 
Bev. J. M. Hart, Eldorado, known and loved all over 
Arkansas, was elected President of the Convention; J. B. 
G. W. N". Adams was Becording Secretary, and Bev. Ben- 
jamin Thomas, D. D., Little Bock, was Corresponding 
Secretary. Such has been the policy of the Arkansas 
Baptist State Convention for years. Those who OPPOSE 
BOAEDS and Conventions are the OTNOVATOES. 
Ouachita College was instituted in 1886, 24 years ago, 
under the auspices of the Arkansas Baptist State Conven- 
tion, and its policy stands unchanged to this day — 1910. 
Those who oppose the College and the Convention have 
changed. 

The Southern Baptist Convention was organized in 
1845, 65 years ago; its policy has been practically the 
same from that day to this. Those who oppose it have 



36 Grapeshot and Canister 

changed. The PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY gave the 
best part of their lives to the Southern Baptist Conven- 
tion. Mississippi Convention was organized in 1839, 71 
years ago. Indiana Convention, Missouri Association and 
Tennessee Convention were organized in 1833, 77 years 
ago. They all have their Boards and their Corresponding 
Secretaries. New Jersey and North Carolina Conventions 
were organized in 1830, 80 years ago. Pennsylvania Bap- 
tist Association was organized in 1827, 83 years ago. L. G. 
Beck was Corresponding Secretary for fourteen years, and 
raised $172,000. For the first fifty years this body aver- 
aged 29 missionaries per year. New Hampshire and Rhode 
Island Conventions were organized in 1826, 84 years ago. 
Maine Convention was organized in 1824, 86 years. ago; 
they have Colby University. Alabama Convention, and 
Virginia Association, with its money basis, were organized 
in 1823, 87 years ago. The Baptist Association of Georgia 
was organized in 1822, 88 years ago; its name was changed 
to "Baptist Convention" in 1828. South Carolina Con- 
vention was organized in 1821, 89 years ago. Drs. Richard 
Furman, W. B. Johnson, Basil Manly, J. P. Boyce, John 
A. Broadus, were its Presidents respectively. Rev. W. H. 
Strickland, brother of the lamented C. W. Strickland, of 
Nashville, Ark., was its Corresponding Secretary. This 
Convention founded the Furman Theological Institute, 
which has grown into both the Furman University and 
the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The North 
Carolina Baptist Society for Foreign and Domestic Mis- 
sions, and the Triennial Convention, were organized in 
1814, 96 years ago. The Triennial Convention merged 
into the American Baptist Missionary Union in 1846. 



Conventions and Associations 37 

The New York Hamilton Missionary Society was organ- 
ized in 1807, 103 years ago. It was changed to New 
York State Missionary Convention in 1821. Massachu- 
setts Convention was organized in 1802, 108 years age. 
The Baptist Missionary Society for Foreign Missions was 
organized in 1792, 118 years ago, at Kittering, Eng., in 
the house of the widow of Beeby Wallis. William Carey, 
a shoemaker, and Dr. Thomas, a Baptist surgeon, were 
appointed Missionaries by this Society in 1793. The Bo- 
denheim Association was doing Convention work in 1789, 
121 years ago: "This plan consisted in the appointment 
of a COMMITTEE TO EMPLOY A SUITABLE or- 
dained Elder as a Missionary to travel into the eastern 
parts to preach and administer the ordinances of the Gos- 
pel. . . . It was decided to carry the Gospel not only 
to DESTITUTE CHUECHES, but to new and destitute 
settlements, where Christ was not preached." — (Missions 
and Mission Methods, J. H. Milburn, p. 104.) Since, ac- 
cording to Milburn and these modern Landmarkers, none 
but Church- Sent Missionaries are Scriptural Missionaries, 
and since, according to their lately invented methods, no 
Board or Committee can Scripturally "EMPLOY" a Mis- 
sionary, and, since the Bodenheim Association did appoint 
a Board or Committee to "employ a suitable missionary to 
travel," etc., therefore the Bodenheim Association, accord- 
ing to J. H. Milburn, is clearly in the Convention column, 
and not with the Landmarkers; and that, too, 121 years 
ago. You will note also that the Bodenheim Associational 
Board EMPLOYED this Missionary to preach to "desti- 
tute churches" also. This is exactly what Conventions do 
today, and what Milburn so vigorously opposes in his Book. 



38 Grapeshot and Canister 

The play Milburn makes on the word "ASSOCIATION" 
is beneath the dignity of any true author. The fact that 
it was called an "ASSOCIATION" by no means makes it 
a Landmark Association, such as Milburn and these mod- 
ern Landmarkers advocate. But the "legs of the lame 
are not equal." Milburn has answered himself. In his 
book on Missions and Mission Methods, p. 123, he says: 
"Merely calling an organization an Association does not 
make it such in the Baptist time-honored sense of the 
term. In developing the points of dissimilarity between 
Baptist Associations, composed only of churches and Bap- 
tist Conventions, we shall regard and speak of those so- 
called State Associations in Kentucky, Virginia, Mary- 
land and Missouri as CONVENTIONS for the AT- 
TRIBUTES AND CHARACTERISTICS of the one are 
like those of the others." The Bodenheim was certainly 
not an Association in the "Landmark" sense of the term, 
for it appointed a Board or Committee, according to Mil- 
burn's own statement, to "employ a suitable missionary." 
The Bodenheim Association was, therefore, an Association 
in the "Baptist time-honored sense of the term," a regu- 
lar Convention Association, with all the "attributes and 
characteristics" of a Convention, but not an Association 
in the "Landmark" sense of the term, J. H. Milburn him- 
self being witness. The Kehukee Association was doing- 
Convention work in 1787, 123 years ago. In Burkitt & 
Reed's History of the Kehukee Baptist Association, 1850, 
p. 92, we find the following statement: "This Associ- 
ation agreed to reconsider the business of ITINERANT 
preaching. A COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED FOR 



Conventions and Associations 39 

THAT PURPOSE, and after deliberation thereon reported 
as follows : 

1. It is thought expedient that every quarterly meeting 
should be attended by some neighboring ITINERANT 
PREACHER. 

2. That not only ORDAINED PREACHERS, but 
YOUNG GIFTS also be advised and ealled upon by the 
church to which they belong, to engage in the work, not 
ONLY amongst the churches, but in other places where 
it may appear necessary. 

3. * That as many APPOINTMENTS AS CAN be con- 
veniently attended be BY THE PRESENT ASSOCIA- 
TION MADE, in order to begin the work." 

In his effort to make it appear that the Kehukee Asso- 
ciation was a "Landmark" Association on the question of 
CHURCH-SENT missionaries, J. H. Milburn, in his 
book on Mission Methods, p. 104, quotes only paragraph 
No. 2 of the foregoing quotation from Burkitt & Reed's 
History. Whereas, the paragraphs which he studiously 
left out show clearly that the Kehukee Association selected 
their missionaries, and even "made many appointments" 
for them. It was clearly a Convention Association. 

The Philadelphia Association did Convention work as 
early as 1765, 145 years ago. 

Burkitt & Reed say: "The churches thus reformed,, 
although few in number, entered into an association com- 
pact about the year 1765, and first convened at Kehukee, 
from whence the Association took the name of the 'Ke- 
hukee Association.' " "This was the state of these 
churches until divine Providence disposed the PHILA- 
DELPHIA BAPTIST ASSOCIATION TO SEND 



40 Grapeshot and Canister 

Messrs. Vanhorn and Miller, two of the ministers belong- 
ing to that Association, who lived in New Jersey, TO 
TKAVEL INTO THE SOUTHEEN COLONIES and 
VISIT THE CHUECHES and preach the Gospel."— His- 
tory, pp. 36, 33. The Philadelphia Association was or- 
ganized in 1707. These men were not sent out DIEECT 
from the churches as the Gospel Missionaries or Land- 
markers demand, but "divine Providence disposed the 
Philadelphia Baptist Association to SEND" them to travel 
into the Southern Colonies. Is that Gospel Missions? A 
clear case of Conventionism, 145 years ago. The Phila- 
delphia Association was the oldest Association in the 
United States. The Charleston, organized in 1751, was 
the next. The Charleston Association was doing Conven- 
tion work in 1755. Of this Benedict, Vol. 2, p. 135, says: 
"In 1755 the Association, taking into consideration the 
destitute condition of many places in the interior settle- 
ments of this and the neighboring States (then provinces), 
recommended to the churches to make contributions for 
the support of a missionary to itinerate in those parts. 
Mr. Hart was authorized and requested, provided a suf- 
ficient sum should be raised, to procure, if possible, a suit- 
able person for the purpose. With this view he visited 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the following year, and 
prevailed with Rev. John Gano (this was the Gano who 
baptized George Washington. — Ed.) to undertake the serv- 
ice, who attended the annual meeting, and was cordially 
received." This was a straight case of Conventionism. 
The Association appointed a Board of ONE to procure a 
missionary, and asked the churches to support him. No 
Gospel Missions in that. That was 155 years ago. This 



Conventions and Associations 41 

Association began a school among the Indians, the very 
thing Convention Baptists are doing today, and the very 
thing to which our Landmark brethren so vehemently 
object. Benedict says: 

"Eev. John Eooker was engaged to preach to the Ca- 
tawba Indians, at least once a month, and to consult the 
chiefs and other persons of influence on their disposition 
to have a school founded among them. Mr. Eooker at the 
next meeting reported that the Indians had given him a 
very favorable reception, etc. It was, in consequence, de- 
termined to continue the mission, and Mr. Eooker was 
authorized to employ a teacher to instruct the youth in the 
common branches of education, and the principles of Chris- 
tianity." (Vol. 2, p. 146.) Speaking again of this Asso- 
ciation's work among the Indians, Benedict further says: 
"In 1810 this society had collected by annual contributions 
$1,896.60, of which $1,850.78 had been expended in pay- 
ing the salaries of their missionary and schoolmaster, 
purchasing books, etc." (Vol. 2, 441.) One hundred 
years ago the second Association organized in the 
United States was doing the very things to which our 
Landmark brethren so seriously object today. They fur- 
nished the Indians a missionary, free schools, school books, 
etc. These Associations were clearly within the Conven- 
tion column, 100 years ago. 

English Baptists were doing work much like the work 
now being done by our Home Mission Board at Atlanta, 
Ga., in 1723, 187 years ago. They were doing Board 
work just as Convention Baptists do today. Of this work 
Mr. Cramp says: 

"The ministers living in London and its vicinity formed 



42 Grapeshot and Canister 

themselves into a society, January 20, 1723-4, which has 
continued until now. The original purposes of the so- 
ciety are thus adverted to by Mr. Ivimey: 'They gave 
their opinion and advice in any matters of difficulty in the 
churches that were referred to them by both parties ; they 
received APPLICATIONS from the country ministers 
to assist them from the Baptist Fund ; they sanctioned and 
recommended cases of building and repairing meeting 
houses in the country, and to be collected for in London; 
they watched rigorously over the purity of the members 
composing the BOAKD, whether it related to charges of 
immoral conduct, or of erroneous principles; they re- 
ceived to their friendship ministers upon their being set- 
tled as pastors in the churches, and young ministers who 
were introduced by the pastors of the respective churches 
which had called them to the ministry ; and they appear to 
have generally acted in a BODY in assisting DESTI- 
TUTE churches, and at the ordination of ministers — to 
have very strictly discouraged separation in the churches — 
and to have affectionately supported each other against 
traducers.' The society is now called the Baptist Board." — 
Baptist History, p. 488. 

This Board helped in building and repairing churches, 
and supplemented the salaries of ministers in weak 
churches who applied for help. This was conventionism 
pure and simple, 187 years ago. 

The General Assembly, or Convention of England was 
organized in 1689, 221 years ago. Of these General As- 
semblies Benedict says: 

"These were composed of representatives from the 
VABIOUS ASSOCIATIONS, and from such churches 



Conventions and Associations 43 

as chose to send their deputies, which might be either 
ministers or private brethren." — Benedict, His. Baptists, 
p. 332. 

This proves that Baptist Conventions 221 years ago 
were not composed of CHURCHES, as our Landmark 
brethren teach, but of "representatives from various asso- 
ciations," as well as "from such churches as chose to send 
their deputies." Of these General Assemblies or Conven- 
tions, Benedict further says : 

"In process of time, so strongly were many inclined to 
constitute these bodies into courts of appeal that it was 
found necessary to define their powers, and make them 
advisory councils, as Baptists in ALL AGES and coun- 
tries have done." — History, p. 332. 

Notwithstanding, these general bodies could not right- 
fully exercise any authority over the churches, then as now, 
yet they deemed it not inconsistent, then as now, to have 
their Corresponding Secretaries or Superintendents of 
Missions, whose duty it was, then as now, to help the 
churches in every way consistent with their independency. 
These Superintendents they called MESSENGERS, per- 
haps from the names given to them in the Scriptures. 
(2 Cor. 8:23.) If these Superintendents sometimes tran- 
scended their prerogatives, that did not prove the unscrip- 
turalness of their work, any more than the usurpation of 
authority by Pastors, Deacons, or Sunday School Super- 
intendents, proves the unscripturalness of their positions. 
Of these helpers Benedict says: 

"They therefore introduced an officer into their s} r stem, 
whom they styled a MESSENGER. He was generally 
chosen by an ASSOCIATION of the representatives of 



44 Grapeshot and Canister 

the churches. They were appointed for the gathering of 
churches, and the establishment of them. But when 
churches increased, and errors and irregularities sprung 
up among the young converts and inexperienced ministers, 
it was judged expedient to extend the MESSENGER'S 
work, by assigning to him the superintendence and, IN" A 
SENSE, the government of those CHURCHES which 
united in calling him to the office." (Benedict, p. 333.) 

Of course, the ABUSE of such an office might lead to 
Episcopacy, just as the practice of injecting Church Au- 
thority into the General Association, and other general 
bodies, by the Landmarkers might lead to the Papacy. 
But no one would deny the right of a church to instruct 
messengers to general bodies, simply because such a course 
when abused leads to centralization and ecclesiastical 
courts. Benedict has this further to say about the Gen- 
eral Assembly or Convention of England: 

"The year 1689 was a distinguished epoch in the his- 
tory of the English Baptists, on account of the General 
Assembly which then convened in London and published 
a confession of faith which was long a standard work 
among them. This Assembly was composed of delegates 
from upwards of a hundred congregations, from different 
parts of England and Wales." (History, p. 336.) 

We have shown already from Benedict, p. 332, that these 
conventions were also composed of "representatives from 
the various Associations." Of this Convention J. H. 
Milburn says: 

"The Assembly which adopted the 'London Confession 
of Faith' was UNDOUBTEDLY A REPRESENTATIVE 
BODY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTED THE 



Conventions and Associations 45 

FAITH AND PEACTICE OF BAPTIST CHURCHES 
AT THAT TIME." . . . "We now quote from Bene- 
dict's History of Baptists respecting this meeting as fol- 
lows: 'At this meeting of MESSENGERS of the 
churches which adopted the London confession was, Re- 
solved among other things to raise a fund for missionary 
purposes and to assist feeble churches, also for the purpose 
of ministerial education.'" (Missions and Mission Meth- 
ods, p. 106.) 

Then, after GARBLING and LITERALLY CHANG- 
ING the WORDS of Benedict, in the above quotation, as 
we will show presently, Milburn exclaims and soliloquizes 
vociferously as follows : 

"Those churches were then evidently Gospel Mission 
Churches. This was 125 years before there was a Baptist 
Convention on earth. Honestly, reader, what do you think 
of those editors and authors (?) who persistently assert 
that those who refuse to adopt Conventionism have 'split 
off/ but will never tell what they have 'split off from? 
There were no Baptist Conventions, nor Convention Bap- 
tists, nor churches co-operating with organizations of 
similar character or kind, for over 1,700 years." (Idem., 
p. 107.) 

Thus we have Milburn's unqualified statement that the 
Baptist General Assembly of England, 1689, composed of 
representatives from ASSOCIATIONS and Churches, was 
"undoubtedly a representative body and correctly repre- 
sented the faith and practice of Baptist churches of that 
time." Then to leave the impression on his readers that 
this Assembly was NOT a Convention, but a Landmark 
Association, and that "this was 125 years before there 



46 Grapeshot and Canister 

was a Baptist Convention on earth," he quotes Benedict as 
saying : 

"At this meeting of MESSENGERS of the churches 
which adopted the London Confession was, Resolved among 
other things to raise a fund for missionary purposes and to 
assist feeble churches, also for the purpose of ministerial 
education." (Mission Methods, p. 106.) 

But when we turn to Benedict's History, cited by Mil- 
burn, lo, and behold to our utter astonishment, we find 
that this was what Benedict wrote : 

"AT THIS CONVENTION the denomination, among 
other things, resolved to raise a fund for missionary pur- 
poses, and to ASSIST FEEBLE CHURCHES; also, for 
the purpose of ministerial education. — Rippon's Register 
for 1796." (Benedict's History, p. 336.) 

De omnibus rebus, et quibusdam aliis — about every- 
thing, and something more besides ! Compare what Bene- 
dict really SAID with what J. H. Milburn SAYS Bene- 
dict said, and we think that you will agree with us that 
the English language is entirely inadequate to properly 
express our contempt for such garbling and misrepresenta- 
tion of authors to carry a point. To use Milburn's own 
language: "Honestly, reader, what do you think of those 
editors and authors (?) who persistently assert that there 
were no Baptist Conventions, nor Convention Baptists," 
in 1689, and then to prove their false assumption delib- 
erately erase what the Historian says, and insert words 
of their own choosing. The Convention of 1689 voted to 
raise a fund, not only for missionary purposes, but also 
for ministerial education, and to help FEEBLE 
CHUBCHES. In this respect they were exactly like Con- 



Conventions and Associations 47 

rentions of the present day, and exactly UNLIKE modern 
Landmark associations. Yes, Baptists were doing Con- 
vention work 221 years ago. Milburn's own author so de- 
clares. The Welsh Association was doing convention work 
in 1653, 257 years ago. They did just what our Conven- 
tions and Associations are doing today. J. Davis, in his 
History of The Welsh Baptists, 1835, says: 

"In the Association held at Swansea in 1654, the church 
at Llantrisaint proposed to assist the church at Abergav- 
enny, now Llanwenarth, to support their minister, which 
also they did. From the MESSENGERS of Llantrisaint, 
also, the proposal to revive the ancient order of things, 
came the preceding year; that is, to encourage and sup- 
port the missionary cause. Let our brethren in the new 
world, look and stare at this, especially our anti-missionary 
friends. Be it known unto them, that in the years 1653, 
IN THE WELSH ASSOCIATION held at Abergavenny, 
county of Monmouth, South Wales, COLLECTIONS 
WERE MADE, when the Welsh church SUBSCRIBED 
to raise a fund for MISSIONARY PURPOSES. Their 
plan was for the MESSENGERS of every church to men- 
tion a CERTAIN SUM, and BIND themselves to bring 
that SUM with them to the next ASSOCIATION. For 
instance, Swansea, 5 lbs.; Llantrisaint, 2 lbs. 10s; Car- 
mathen, 2 lbs. 10s. No one was compelled to give any- 
thing, neither was any messenger ever blamed for making 
such engagements, but was cheerfully assisted by his 
brethren to fulfill them. This is only a specimen of the 
commencement of the missionary cause in this region. 
The next year, we find that the churches had more than 



48 Grapesliot and Canister 

doubled that sum." (History of The Welsh Baptists, p, 
85.) 

The same Author, page 187, says: "The first Associa- 
tion AFTER the reformation, as far as we can find, was 
held at Abergavenny, on the 14th and 15th days of the 
sixth month, in the YEAR 1653; when the MINISTERS 
AND MESSENGERS of five of the old and apostolic 
Baptist order, met and calmly and DELIBERATELY 
CONSIDERED THE BEST MEANS TO BE ADOPT- 
ED FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE GOSPEL 
OF CHRIST/' This Association, composed of "minrsters 
and Messengers/' was "deliberately considering the best 
means to be adopted for the furtherance of the gospel of 
Christ," but no one thought of charging them with usurp- 
ing the authority or rights of the churches. Their method 
was exactly like our Conventions, and exactly UNLIKE 
the demands and teachings of modern "Landmark" Bap- 
tists, who claim that the "best means to be adopted for the 
furtherance of the gospel of Christ" is to be left entirely 
to the consideration of the local CHURCHES, as such, 
and not to the "ministers and messengers of the old and 
apostolic Baptist order," as it was in the case of the Welsh 
Association in 1653. This Welsh Association was clearly 
a Convention Association, doing Convention work 257 
years ago. Thus it appears that this new movement to re- 
store the ancient order of things as respects the missionary 
enterprise in the seventeenth century began, not in the 
LOCAL CHURCH as such, but IN THE ASSOCIA- 
TION, among the MINISTERS AND MESSENGERS. 
This was Conventionism, pure and simple. The Waldenses 
and Albigenses, the Baptists of the twelfth century, had 



Conventions and Associations 49 

their Associations and Conventions, much like the Asso- 
ciations and Conventions among Convention Baptists of 
today; but wholly UNLIKE modern Landmark associa- 
tions which inject church authority into their general 
bodies. Orchard, in his History of Foreign Baptists, page 
195, says : 

"By the assiduous and unceasing efforts of the ELDERS 
AND TEACHERS, to instruct and qualify every member 
of the community, to inform the ignorant of the way of 
salvation; and by their SYSTEM of local itinerancy, 
while others undertook more extensive journeys. These 
UNITED EFFORTS OF THE WHOLE BODY were 
attended with incalculable good, and such ORGANIZED 
EXERTIONS promised fair to EVANGELIZE THE 
WORLD; and if this object is ever attained, SIMILAR 
MEANS must be used by men of disinterested virtue, 
whose love of souls shall rise SUPERIOR TO THE LOVE 
OF GAIN AND EASE. From their COMBINED en- 
deavors to promote the knowledge of Christ, 'The sects of 
the Cathraists, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and others/ says 
Mosheim, 'gathered strength from day to day, spread im- 
perceptibly throughout all Europe, and assembled numer- 
ous congregations in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany.' " 

This was in 1183, 727 years ago. Thus, as early as 727 
years ago, our Baptist fathers, of whom the world was not 
worthy, had "their system of local itinerancy," sending their 
"Elders and Teachers," in "united efforts of the whole 
BODY," with "organized exertions to EVANGELIZE 
THE WORLD." 

The churches were aroused to their obligation of WORLD- 
WIDE EVANGELISM, "by the assiduous and unceasing 



50 Grapeshot and Canister 

efforts of the Elders and Teachers." It is just so today. 
And this is Conventionism, no more, no less. Like the 
Conventions of today, these general Baptist BODIES of 
the twelfth century made "organized exertions to evange- 
lize the WOKLD," the very thing modern Landmark Bap- 
tists so vehemently oppose. The Waldenses were without 
doubt Convention Baptists. Our Baptist Fathers used 
"organized exertions" and "'united efforts" to "evangelize 
the world" in those days; and with Orchard we believe 
that "if this object is ever attained, SIMILAR MEANS 
must be used by men of disinterested VIETUE, whose 
love of souls shall rise superior to the Jove of GAIN 
and EASE"; base principles so often appealed to by those 
who oppose Conventions and Missionary Societies. 

According to Davis, the Historian, the Welsh Baptists 
had their Associations which "met and calmly and delib- 
erately considered the best means to be adopted for the fur- 
therance of the gospel of Christ," more than 1310 years 
ago. He says : "We have every reason to believe that the 
Welsh Baptists had their ASSOCIATIONS, and that Dy- 
frig, Illyd, Dynawt, were the leading men among them, 
long before Austin's attempt to convert them to Popery, 
IN THAT ASSOCIATION, which was held on the bor- 
ders of England, about the year 600." (Davis History 
Welsh Baptists, p. 187.) All these Associations were, ac- 
cording to Davis the Historian, just such as our Conven- 
tion Associations are today. In 249, 1661 years ago, Bap- 
tists had their Associations and Conventions, "mutual 
UNIONS for the MANAGEMENT of spiritual affairs/' 
Orchard says: 

"Associations of ministers and churches, which at first 



Conventions and Associations 51 

were formed in Greece became common throughout the em- 
pire. These mutual UNIONS for the management of 
spiritual affairs, led to the choice of a PRESIDENT, 
which added distinction amongst ministers." (History of 
Foreign Baptists, p. 29.) 

If the abuse of Conventions in those degenerating times 
is sufficient reason for the abrogation of Conventions NOW, 
the same reasons may be assigned for the abolition of As- 
sociations NOW; for, if these authorities are to be relied 
upon, the Associations of those times operated upon the 
very principles governing the Conventions of our present 
day. 

But the opponents to Conventions sometimes cite the 
language of Orchard's in respect to the missionary opera- 
tions of the Paulicians of the eleventh century in justi- 
fication of their fight on Conventions and societies. 

Orchard says: "An evident mark of apostolic spirit 
possessed by this people must be admitted by all; WITH- 
OUT ANY FUNDS or PUBLIC SOCIETIES to coun- 
tenance or support the arduous undertaking, otherwise 
than their respective churches, the Paulicians fearlessly 
penetrated the most barbarous parts of Europe, and went 
SINGLE-HANDED, and single-eyed, to the conflict with 
every grade of character." (History, p. 139.) After quot- 
ing the foregoing from Orchard, J. H. Milburn, in Mis- 
sions and Mission Methods, p. 109, comments as follows: 

"Here the historian positively asserts that those Pauli- 
cian Baptists had NO SOCIETIES to countenance or sup- 
port their 'arduous undertaking,' but went to the conflict 
against every grade of character with NOTHING TO 



52 Orapeshot and Canister 

SUPPORT them 'otherwise than their respective 
churches/ " 

If the methods used by these earnest Paulicians before 
the invention of printing is to be our EXAMPLE, as Mil- 
burn insists, then the Landmarkers should, without delay, 
dissolve their publication society, and put an end to their 
Landmark literature, and disband the Arkansas Baptist 
Publishing Compaq, and dismiss their Missionary Com- 
mittee of thirty members, and throw away their mission 
fund, for "WITHOUT FUNDS or PUBLIC SOCIETIES 
to support the arduous undertaking," the Paulicians "fear- 
lessly penetrated to the most barbarous parts of Europe, 
SINGLE-HANDED." If that quotation is against CON- 
VENTIONS, it is also against all sorts of missionary 
funds and missionary societies, and missionary organiza- 
tions. Milburn, the spokesman for the Landmarkers, has 
put his brethren clearly WITHOUT the pale of Mission- 
ary BapHsts. And this is the logical outcome of their de- 
fection. It is the battle of 1832 fought over again, Mil- 
burn himself being witness. Baptist people had their Con- 
ventions in 170 A. D., 1,740 years ago. Orchard, History 
of Foreign Baptists, pp. 109-110, says : 

"When points were difficult or disputed, a more general 
company of MINISTERS and DISCIPLES MET, AS 
THE APOSTLES HAD DONE AT JERUSALEM, to 
consult and promote love, truth and unity. This course 
probably suggested to churches the propriety of a regular 
intercourse with one another. A stated meeting ensued of 
all the churches in the same canton or province, wherein 
they fully discussed church affairs. From the confidence 
the church had in their ministers, when the DISTANCE 



Conventions and Associations 53 

was great, the affairs of the churches were intrusted to a 
deputation of ELDEES AND DEACONS WITH 
OTHERS. From these friendly meetings arose a sort of 
REPUBLIC ASSOCIATION of the churches in a par- 
ticular province. The metropolis being the most centric, 
was usually the PLACE OF MEETING. At first, the of- 
fice of PRESIDENT seems generally to have been elective, 
and to have continued no longer than the sessions of the 
synod. The BISHOP of the place where the ASSOCIA- 
TION was held, from a sort of a natural title to PRE- 
SIDE IN THE CONVENTION, came, by the gradual 
but sure operation of custom, to be regarded as the head 
of the BODY. This in TIME, aided by OTHER AUX- 
ILIARY CAUSES, established a metropolitan bishop, 
which when fully matured, gave a SEAT and conferred 
AUTHORITY on the papistical monster. During the 
greater part of this century, Christian churches were IN- 
DEPENDENT of each other; nor were they joined to- 
gether BY ASSOCIATION, CONFEDERACY, OR ANY 
OTHER BONDS but those of CHARITY. Each Chris- 
tian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, 
which were either enacted, or at least approved, by the so- 
ciety; but in process of time, as above noticed, ALL THE 
CHURCHES OF A PROVINCE WERE BROUGHT 
INTO ONE ECCLESIASTICAL BODY." From this 
long quotation, the historian clearly shows that the 
churches of the second century, more than 1,740 years ago, 
had their Associations and Conventions which were com- 
posed of "deputations of Elders and deacons with others/ 7 
similar to the first CONVENTION at Jerusalem, A. D. 
52, Acts 15th chapter. Just as our Conventions today are 



54 Grapeshot and Canister 

composed of INDIVIDUALS, and not composed of 
CHURCHES. But in process of time, when they left the 
Apostolic standard or method of co-operation by MES- 
SENGERS, when they began to inject CHURCH AU- 
THORITY into their Associations and Conventions, when 
"all the churches of a province were brought into one ec- 
clesiastical body," the very moment they gave church au- 
thority to their Associations and Conventions as the mod- 
ern Landmarkers do who declare that their Associations are 
composed of CHURCHES, and not of MESSENGERS; 
that very moment, and by that very ACT, as Orchard 
says, they "gave a seat and conferred authority on the pa- 
pistical monster." CHURCH AUTHORITY in our As- 
sociations and Conventions, which is the slogan today of 
our "Landmark" brethren, one of their cardinal doctrines, 
was one of the prime causes of the Papacy in the dark ages 
with all her death-dealing influences. The Apostolic 
churches, and the churches of the first and second cen- 
tury, as Orchard says, were not "joined together by AS- 
SOCIATION, CONFEDERACY, OR ANY OTHER 
BONDS, but those of charity." And regular Baptist 
churches of today are not "joined together by ASSOCIA- 
TION, CONFEDERACY, OR ANY OTHER BONDS 
but those of charity." And that, too, for the very best of 
reasons — it is IMPOSSIBLE. Scriptural Associations 
and Scriptural Conventions are not, and in the very nature 
of the case cannot be, composed of CHURCHES. No 
church can Scripturally delegate her authority to any other 
organization. She may use other organizations as a means 
of carrying out the will of Christ, such as Conventions and 
Associations, and Publication societies. But "Landmark" 



Conventions and Associations 55 

Associations are declared to be composed of churches, 
hence "Landmark" Associations are ecclesiastical bodies. 
Such Associations are unscriptural in that respect, be- 
cause it is unscriptural for a Church of Jesus Christ to 
DELEGATE her authority. (Matt. 18:15-17.) 

The churches cannot be "JOINED by an Association, 
Confederacy, or any other BONDS/' in the sense of an 
ORGANIZATION. Before the Churches can merge into 
and compose an Association or a Convention they must 
necessarily surrender their Independency which is and has 
ever been the BULWABK of Baptist churches. Churches 
may CO-OPERATE in the work of an association or a con- 
vention, but conventions and associations are not thereby 
composed of churches. Scriptural churches may CO- 
OPERATE in the work of the Anti-saloon League, but the 
Anti-saloon League is not thereby composed of 
CHURCHES. Churches may, and should, co-operate in 
the work of our missionary societies, but our missionary 
societies are not thereby composed of churches. 

But if the Defectives insist that the Apostolic churches 
had no associations or conventions in New Testament times, 
then it follows that the "Landmarkers" should have no as- 
sociations NOW. This is the logic of their position on 
mission METHODS. Our Baptist Fathers, according to 
Orchard, had their Conventions and Associations which 
were composed of "Elders and Deacons with others," as 
early as 170 A. D., 1,740 years ago. Convention Baptists, 
therefore, are clearly in LINE with the Baptists of the 
SECOND century. 

But are CONVENTIONS and BOARDS Scriptural? 
Did the Apostles use such means in the propagation of the 



56 Grapeshot and Canister 

Gospel in the early churches? We think we are able to 
show conclusively that as early as A. D. 60, 1,850 years 
ago, Baptists had their BOARDS and Conventions just as 
we have them today. Begular Missionary Baptists have 
employed these means in missionary work for at least 
1,850 years, therefore THEY ALONE have the right to 
be considered Primitive Baptists on these points. We take 
the liberty of transcribing the following pointed argu- 
ments in favor of Conventions and Boards from Chapter 
VII, Christian Union, Or The Problem Solved, by Ben M. 
Bogard, Editor of the Arkansas Baptist — the organ of the 
Landmark Baptists of Arkansas, Moderator of the General 
Association of Landmark Baptists, 1909, Editor of some 
of the Landmark Sunday School literature, and of whom 
J. H. Milburn, in his book on Missions and Mission Meth- 
ods, p. Ill, says : 

"We wish to acknowledge some very valuable help we 
received from Brother Ben. M. Bogard, who collected for 
us some of the historical data in this book. Brother Bo- 
gard is Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, published at Little 
Rock, Arkansas ; he is a fine scholar, an able Editor, a fine 
historian, a most excellent preacher and is doubtless the 
ablest oral controversialist in the United States." Bogard 
ought to be good authority for the "Landmarkers." Editor 
Bogard says: 

"WHO ARE THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS? Be- 
fore the year 1832 the Baptists believed and practiced the 
same things. At that time (1832) they divided on the 
following questions: Missions, salary to preachers, 
BOARDS, CONVENTIONS, schools and colleges, etc. 
Previous to this all were one, and such a question, as who 



Conventions and Associations 57 

were the Primitive Baptists, was never asked, because they 
were all Primitive. Whatever was practiced and believed 
before the year 1832 by the Baptists was the practice and 
belief of Primitive Baptists. Those Baptists who do not 
teach the doctrines which Baptists taught before the year 
1832 are not Primitive Baptists. Let us examine history, 
both sacred and profane, and see who are primitive in 
practice and thus we will see who are Primitive 
Baptists. All historians of note agree that Bap- 
tists had their origin with Christ and the Apostles. 
Then, if this is true, that which was PRACTICED by the 
EABLY disciples can be called Primitive Baptist prac- 
tice. Let us first, therefore, examine the New Testament 
and see what doctrines and practices prevailed at that 
time. . . . Another cause of the division was the fact 
that Baptists had Mission Boards, Conventions, Sunday 
schools, etc. Let us see who are Primitive Baptists on 
THIS POINT. If Baptists in New Testament times had 
BODIES which will correspond with MODERN Conven- 
tions, BOARDS, Sunday schools, etc., then those Baptists 
who have them NOW are Primitive Baptists on that point. 
Read Gal. 2 :l-2 : 'Then fourteen years after I went up to 
Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them 
that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but pri- 
vately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means 
I should run, or had run, in vain/ " 

"Here we see Paul called a number of brethren together 
for the purpose of considering important matters — espe- 
cially his mission among the Gentiles. 'The brethren thus 
called together were men of reputation, noted for their 



58 Grapeshot and Canister 

wisdom. These with Paul and Barnabas, and probably 
Titus, made up the meeting, and they were consulting, 
NOT AS A CHURCH, but as INDIVIDUAL Baptists, 
about the preaching of the Gospel and for the purpose of 
deciding an important matter. Paul gives us the result of 
the conference thus: "When James and Cephas, who 
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given 
unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of 
fellowship ; that we should go unto the Heathen and they 
unto the Circumcision. Only they would that we should 
remember the poor," etc. (Gal. 2:9-11.) 

"Here was a Baptist meeting considering missionary and 
benevolent work. Of course, we know but little of what 
was said. We know, however, that they formed a partner- 
ship to carry on preaching among the Jews and Gentiles, 
and that it was agreed to get up funds for the poor. If 
these brethren thus met and thus agreed, outside of their 
church capacity, brethren certainly may pursue a sim- 
ilar course NOW. And if so they may have set TIMES 
and set RULES for such conferences, and this would be 
the SAME THING as a missionary CONVENTION or 
society. Missionary Baptists have meetings of this sort. 
Therefore, as to this, they are Primitive Baptists. Hard- 
shells do not have meetings of this sort, nor will they fel- 
lowship those who do have them. Therefore, the Hard- 
shells are not the Primitive Baptists — at least as to THIS 
POINT.'" (Quoted approvingly by Bogard from Throg- 
morton-Potter Debate, pp. 53-54.) 

But Bogard continues : 

"As to BOARDS, it is necessary to define a BOARD. 
A board is a BODY of men, usually, two, three, or a half- 



Conventions and Association 59 

dozen, who are APPOINTED by the churches for special 
work. Read 2 Cor. 8 : 18-1 9 : And we have sent with him 
the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all 
the churches ; and not that only, but who was also chosen 
of the churches to TEAVEL WITH US with this grace 
(gift in margin) which is ADMINISTERED BY US to 
the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready 
mind. Here is a man chosen by the churches to travel 
and RAISE MONEY for a benevolent object. Read all 
of the 8th chapter of 2 Corinthians. To have APPOINT- 
ED this man it was necessary for the churches to have come 
together AS AN ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS THE 
SAME THING AS A CONVENTION, for he was chosen 
NOT BY A CHURCH, but by the CHURCHES (2 Cor. 
8:19). This could have been done in no way except 
through MESSENGERS of the churches ASSEMBLED 
IN A CONVENTION. Indeed, Paul says, if any inquire 
as to the authority of this BOARD that was SENT to 
them to RAISE MONEY, that it was done by MES- 
SENGERS OF THE CHURCHES." (Read 2 Cor. 8:23.) 
"So it does seem that the New Testament SETTLES 
the question of Missions, Salaries to Preachers, CONVEN- 
TIONS, BOARDS, etc. THESE were the PRINCIPAL 
causes of the DIVISION. Now who are the Primitive 
Baptists from a Bible standpoint? There is but ONE an- 
swer: THOSE WHO TEACH AND PRACTICE 
THOSE THINGS TAUGHT AND PRACTICED IN 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE HARDSHELLS DO 
NOT PRACTICE THOSE THINGS, THEREFORE, 
THEY ARE NOT PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS. THE 
MISSIONARY BAPTISTS DO PRACTICE THOSE 



60 Grapeshot and Canister 

THINGS, THEREFORE, THEY ARE THE PRIMI- 
TIVE BAPTISTS." (Christian Union, or The Problem 
Solved, by Ben. M. Bogard, pp. 56, 61, 62, 63, 64.) 

We have shown that regular Missionary Baptists have 
employed Boards and Conventions even from Apostolic 
times, as early as A. D. 60, to the present time, A. D. 
1910, or 1,850 years. Then, "who are the Primitive Bap- 
tists from a Bible standpoint?" On page 65, same book, 
Ben. M. Bogard says : "LONG before 1832 Baptists were 
missionaries, according to the best records. Whatever took 
place among them BEFORE the Division (1832) was 
PRIMITIVE Baptist Practice." 

But before the DIVISION in 1832, according to Bo- 
gard, "the Baptists believed and practiced the same things." 
They had Conventions and Boards, just as Convention 
Baptists have today ; therefore, the Convention Baptists of 
today are, according to Editor Bogard, the Primitive Bap- 
tists. Hardshells and modern Landmark Baptists do "not 
practice those things, therefore, they are not Primitive 
Baptists." (Idem, p. 64.) The opponents to Conventions 
and Boards answer themselves : "So it does seem that the 
New Testament SETTLES the question of Missions, Sal- 
aries to Preachers, CONVENTIONS, BOARDS, etc. 
THESE were the PRINCIPAL CAUSES of the DIVI- 
SION. Now who are the Primitive Baptists from a Bible 
standpoint? There is but ONE answer: THOSE WHO 
TEACH AND PRACTICE THOSE THINGS TAUGHT 
AND PRACTICED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. The 
Hardshells do NOT practice those things, therefore, THEY 
are NOT Primitive Baptists. The Missionary Baptists DO 
practice those things, therefore, THEY ARE the Primi- 



Conventions and Associations 61 

tive Baptists/' (Christian Union, by Ben. M. Bogard, 
p. 64.) 

On this argument of Editor Bogard's we submit the fol- 
lowing unanswerable syllogisms: 

1. Those who teach and practice those things taught and 
practiced in the New Testament, namely, CONVEN- 
TIONS and BOAEDS, are the Primitive Baptists. 

2. Present-day Convention Baptists teach and practice 
those things taught and practiced in the New Testament, 
namely, CONVENTIONS and BOARDS; 

3. Therefore, present-day Convention Baptists are the 
Primitive Baptists, Bogard himself being witness. 

1. Those who do NOT teach and practice those things 
taught and practiced in the New Testament, namely, CON- 
VENTIONS and BOAEDS, are NOT Primitive Baptists. 

2. But the Hardshells do NOT teach and practice those 
things taught and practiced in the New Testament, 
namely, CONVENTIONS and BOAEDS; 

3. Therefore, the Hardshells are NOT the Primitive 
Baptists, Bogard himself being witness. 

1. Those who do NOT teach and practice those things 
taught and practiced in the New Testament, namely, CON- 
VENTIONS and BOAEDS, are NOT the Primitive 
Baptists. 

2. But the Gospel Missioners do NOT teach and prac- 
tice those things taught and practiced in the New Testa- 
ment, namely, CONVENTIONS and BOAEDS ; 

3. Therefore, the Gospel Missioners are not the Primi- 
tive Baptists, Bogard himself being witness. 

1. Those who do NOT teach and practice those things 
taught and practiced in the New Testament, namely, CON- 



62 Grapeshot and Canister 

VENTIONS and BOARDS, are NOT the Primitive 
Baptists. 

2. But the Landmarkers do NOT teach and practice 
those things taught and practiced in the New Testament, 
namely, CONVENTIONS and BOARDS; 

3. Therefore, the Landmarkers are NOT the Primitive 
Baptists, Bogard himself being witness. 



CHAPTER III. 
Landmarkism and Innovation. 

If CONVENTIONS and BOARDS were employed and 
maintained in the execution of mission work until the DI- 
VISION in 1832, as Editor Bogard declares, then it fol- 
lows as a matter of course, that those who have discarded 
Conventions and Boards are the SECEDING parties, the 
INNOVATORS, on the question of Mission Methods. 
Editor Bogard, who is NOW one of the leaders in the 
Landmark secession, in his book on Christian Union, p. 
56, says : "Before the year 1832 the Baptists believed and 
practiced the SAME things. At THAT TIME (1832) 
they DIVIDED on the following questions : Missions, sal- 
ary to preachers, BOARDS, CONVENTIONS, schools and 
colleges. Previous to THIS all were ONE." Then on p. 
64, Bogard declares that the "New Testament SETTLES 
the question of Missions, Salaries to Preachers, CON- 
VENTIONS, BOARDS, etc. These were the PRINCI- 
PAL CAUSES of the division." Now the Hardshells dis- 
carded these Conventions and Boards, and, therefore, ac- 
cording to Editor Bogard, they "are NOT Primitive Bap- 
tists/' 

It is an indisputable fact, which no reputable historian 
will deny, that the Hardshells began their SECESSION 
from the regular Missionary Baptists by a fight on Mis- 

63 



64 Grapeshot and Canister 

sionary Boards and Conventions. These were the very ar- 
guments made by John Taylor, one of the most influential 
writers in the Hardshell deflection, in his Pamphlet, 
"Thoughts," etc., written October 27, 1819. 

Taylor says : "The deadly evil I have in view is under 
the epithets or appellations of Missionary Boards, Conven- 
tions, Societies, and Theological Schools, all bearing the 
appearance of great though affected sanctity, as the mys- 
tery of iniquity did in the days of Paul, when the man of 
sin was in embryo/' (Gen. of Anti-Missionism, Carroll, 
p. 97.) 

Under the leadership of such eccentric enthusiasts some 
of the churches began to "come out from" the regular Bap- 
tist churches, who, according to Bogard, had used Con- 
ventions and Boards even from the time of the Apostles. 
In September, 1835, the Chemung Association (New York 
and Pennsylvania) at a meeting with Sullivan Church, 
Charleston, Tioga County, Pa., passed the following: 
"Whereas, a number of the Associations with whom we 
have held correspondence have departed from the simplicity 
of the doctrine and practice of Christ, and have followed 
cunningly devised fables (the inventions of men), uniting 
themselves with the world in what are falsely called benev- 
olent societies, founded upon a moneyed basis, with a pro- 
fession to spread the gospel, which is another gospel dif- 
fering from the gospel of Christ. Eesolved, therefore, 
That we discontinue our correspondence with the Phila- 
delphia, Abington, Bridgewater, Franklin, Steuben, Madi- 
son, and all other Associations, which are supporting the 
popular institutions of the day; and most affectionately 
invite all those churches, or MEMBEKS of churches, who 



Landmarkism and Innovation 65 

cannot fellowship them to COME OUT FROM AMONG 
them and LEAVE them." (Bap. Ency., Cathcart, p. 77.) 
Taylor says they Came out from them and LEFT them 
because of Boards and Conventions, etc. Daniel Parker, 
another recognized leader of the Hardshell secession, claims 
to have been the first man in those days to make WAR on 
Conventions and Boards, which Bogard says had been 
taught and practiced by ALL Baptists until 1832. Like 
the Defectives of the present day, Parker at the first made 
war on the mission PLANS, and not on Missions per se. 
They logically, of course, drifted into open oppositions to 
MISSIONS, as well as to mission Methods. And some 
have prophesied the same results in the modern Landmark 
secession of 1902. And it must be admitted that some of 
their leaders are headed that way in this year of our Lord, 
1910. But if Parker spoke the first word in opposition to 
Boards and Conventions, then it follows that the fight on 
these institutions was a brand new innovation. But here 
are his own words : "It is evident that great talents have 
been engaged and much time and money spent to vindi- 
cate the MISSION PLAN, and as YET BUT LITTLE 
SAID OR DONE AGAINST IT. It makes me shudder 
when I think I am the FIRST ONE (that I have any 
knowledge of) among the THOUSANDS of zealous re- 
ligions of America that have ventured to draw the sword 
against the ERROR, or to shoot at it and to spare no ar- 
rows." (Gen. of Anti-M., p. 108.) If Parker was the 
FIRST "to shoot at" Conventionism and Boardism, cer- 
tainly Anti-conventionism and Antl-boardism was, in Par- 
ker's day, a brand new thing. In fact, Editor Bogard says 
the New Testament settles the question of Boards and Coa- 



66 Grapeshot and Canister 

ventions, and that ALL BAPTISTS practiced these tkings 
until the Hardshell defection under Taylor, Parker et al., 
in 1832. Alexander Campbell, the Founder of the Camp- 
bellite Church, also took part in this war on Conventions 
and Boards, and added much to the strength of the Hard- 
shell innovation. Campbell, Taylor, and Parker, of course, 
claimed, just as the modern Landmarkers claim, that Con- 
ventions and Boards were UNSCRIPTURAL, and that the 
Baptists were wrong in the use of these means, even if they 
had been in use, as Bogard declares, from the days of the 
Apostles. But in those days, as it is in these days, their 
strongest arguments consisted in bold assertions and ridi- 
cule, claiming, of course, that the ANTI-Board party was 
on New Testament ground. This claim had weight with 
those honest people who wanted to be Scriptural, but who 
did not know, as Editor Bogard declares, that ALL BAP- 
TISTS had been using Boards and Conventions since the 
days of the Apostles. Hardshellism or Anti-convention- 
ism, therefore, if we reckon from its earliest advocates in 
America, is less than one hundred years old. If we reckon 
from the time they first began to organize Anti-conven- 
tion churches, it is not more than EIGHTY years old. 

No reputable historian will deny that the Hardshells 
left the Regular Missionary Baptists in 1832, just as the 
"Landmarkers" have left the Regular Missionary Baptists 
within the past few years. Of this Hardshell rupture in 
1832 Spencer quotes the Minutes of the General Associa- 
tion of Kentucky, 1837, p. 11, as saying: 

"The Anti-missionary spirit owes its origin to the noto- 
rious Daniel Parker. He was the first person, called a 
Baptist, that lent a hand to the Infidel and Papist in op- 



Landmarkism and Innovation 67 

posing the proclamation of the gospel to every creature, 
and the translation and circulation of the Scriptures in 
all languages and among all people." (Hist. Ky. Baptists, 
Vol. I., p. 658.) 

This was only five years after their separation from the 
Missionaries. In the same year, 1837, Eld. Gilbert Beebe, 
Editor Signs of The Times, the first Hardshell paper in 
existence, established in 1832, used the following language 
concerning the Hardshell separation : 

"After the missionary frenzy had broken out among the 
Baptists, etc., those who had remained steadfast in the 
apostle's doctrine, etc., published a circular to all old-fash- 
ioned Baptists in the United States, to convene with the 
Baptist Church at Black Eock, Md., to take into consid- 
eration the trying state of Zion, etc., in opposition to the 
new schemes and inventions of the day, etc. And having 
met, a free interchange of sentiment was obtained, which 
happily resulted in a unanimous resolution to stand fast 
in the LIBERTY wherewith Christ has made us free, and 
not to be entangled with the yoke of bondage which was 
then being applied to the NECKS of thousands who had 
ONCE BANKED with Regular Baptists. 

"On that occasion it was, upon mature deliberation, 
thought advisable that we who could not fellowship the 
NEW doctrines which had gained among those of our pro- 
fession, or their newly invented machinery for converting 
the world, should from every brother that walketh disor- 
derly withdraw ourselves. * * * We selected from the 
list of epithets which our NEW-MEASURE brethren had 
most bountifully bestowed on us, that of 'Old School Bap- 
tists.'" (Editorials, Vol. I., p. 343.) 



68 Grapeshot and Canister 

Elder Trott was another distinguished author among our 
Hardshell brethren. He wrote a History of the Old School 
Baptists about 1848, which was published in Winebrenner's 
History of All Eeligious Denominations in the United 
States. On pp. 86-87 of said History Elder Trott says : 

"Formerly our churches and associations stood in con- 
nection with what are now Mission Baptists. Then a meet- 
ing was held of brethren from different associations and 
States, and an address published in 1832, setting forth the 
reasons why we could not longer give countenance to any 
of that mass of institutions and SOCIETIES which had 
been introduced among us, nor fellowship to those who 
should continue to adhere to them. 

"This brought brethren, churches, and associations that 
had been GROANING under the burdens of HUMAN 
INVENTIONS and impositions in religion to SEPA- 
RATE themselves, some sooner, some later, from the whole 
mass of popular religionists, and to take a stand as a DIS- 
TINCT people upon the old Baptist standard, etc. This 
SEPARATION occasioned the splitting of several asso- 
ciations and MANY churches. We took as a distinguish- 
ing appellation the name of f 01d School Baptists.' " 

This was only six years after the Hardshells began to 
split off and divide associations and churches, and to SEP- 
ARATE, as they say, from Regular Missionary Baptists. 
But let us hear another witness. Dr. Watson, Editor of the 
Old Baptist Test, says : 

"After OUR painful SEPARATION from the mission- 
aries in 1836 (they separated later in Tennessee than they 
did in Virginia) a number of churches in the bounds of 
the old Concord Association met together and formed the 



Landmarlcism and Innovation 69 

Stone's River Association. We had then, as was generally 
supposed, a strong and happy union. But alas, there was 
an element of heresy incorporated in that body, as BAD 
if not WORSE than that from which we had just with- 
drawn." (Old Baptist Test, pp. 36, 37. See Throgmor- 
ton-Potter Debate, pp. 88, 89, 90.) 

In the Signs of the Times, March 1, 1901, Editor Beebe, 
Jr., bears still later testimony to the fact that the Hard- 
shells LEFT the Missionaries in 1832. He says : "Aside 
from the question of the truth or fallacy of the principles 
advocated by the SIGNS, they are the ones adopted by the 
brethren that assumed the name Old School Baptist, at 
Black Rock, Md., in 1832, at the time of the division or 
split from the Missionary or Freewill Baptists." (Signs 
of the Times, Vol. 69, No. 5, p. 150.) 

This is the first, as it is the oldest, Hardshell paper in 
America. The Hardshells call all the Missionaries Free- 
wills. It is interesting, not to say amusing, to note the 
lamentable appeals of these Hardshells and their charges 
and counter-charges against the missionaries which they 
confess were the Regular Baptists, from whom they had 
just SEPARATED. They had suddenly found out that 
Baptists had invented new schemes, that their liberties 
were taken away, that the yoke of bondage was being ap- 
plied to the necks of thousands, that newly invented ma- 
chinery for the conversion of the world, such as tract 
societies, theological seminaries, and all sorts of religious 
societies, were a curse and not a blessing. And, notwith- 
standing these things had been used, as Bogard declares, 
from the earliest times, they felt called upon to oppose 
them as the monster evil of their times. This they did to 



70 Grapeshot and Canister 

the distraction of churches and associations, families and 
communities. What a striking parallel with the Land- 
mark or Gospel Mission deflection of 1902. An amateur 
in ethnology could not fail to note their striking resem- 
blance. They are of the same species. They are to the 
same manner born. They have the same parentage. They 
act alike, they talk alike they ARE alike. And it will be 
a surprise to some of us if "-heir fight on mission plans 
does not result alike. The following pages will disclose 
the fact that the modern Landmarkers have gone at least 
one step in advance of the Hardshells in denying the 
Scripturalness of Associations or any organization, other 
than a local church. In this respect they have outrun their 
Hardshell brothers. This is the logic of their teaching, 
but they reached it sooner than was expected. It will not 
surprise us if the Landmarkers find, as the Hardshells did, 
that in their new body — the General Association — there 
is an "element of heresy incorporated as bad, if not worse, 
than that from which they have separated." 

We have said elsewhere in these pages that our Land- 
Mark-Gospel-Missioners are discarding Associations and 
all outside bodies, other than a local church, as unscriptural 
organizations. In proof of this statement we quote from 
their leading and standard writers whose publications have 
been more or less widely circulated among our Landmark 
brethren. If they were consistently carrying out their prin- 
ciples they would immediately discontinue their weekly 
and monthly publications, dissolve the Arkansas Baptist 
Publishing Company, disorganize the Landmark Baptist 
Book Concern, and not allow another tract or book pub- 
lished among them until the blast of silver trumptes 



Landmarhism and Innovation 71 

awakes the sleeping nations. The fint witness we intro- 
duce is J. A. Scarboro. 

He says : "The churches of Christ did their work from 
the establishment of Christianity until 1649 WITHOUT 
A MISSIONAKY SOCIETY or Board OUTSIDE of local 
churches." (The Bible, the Baptists and the Board Sys- 
tem, p. 9.) "Baptists deny (of course, he means Gospel 
Missioners, Ed.) Scripture authority for ALL ORGAN- 
IZATIONS exclusive of the one institution — the Church 
or churches of Christ — and this position excludes Conven- 
tions and ALL their creations from a Scriptural basis." 
(B. B. B., p. 58.) 

"No sort of sophistry can answer or refute the fact that 
our machinery is costing* about as much as it gathers." 

"Stop the man-made machine, let each church manage 
its own funds. Put ALL of it into missions, etc. It 
might be a little hard on the "organs" at first, but it would 
stop the newspaper fussing, etc. We could manage to get 
along with the Bible for a time, perhaps, and if there were 
less papers the people would have more time to read the 
Bible, and the change would not do much harm. As for 
the Colleges and Seminaries we have no idea that their 
suspension would wreck the solar system or cause the Holy 
Spirit to make an assignment for lack of preachers. The 
education fad is a great talisman to conjure Baptist pocket- 
books, but a poor advocate of the hard facts. God estab- 
lished a Theological school in his churches ; the Holy Spirit 

*This may be true with the Landmarkers, Bro. Scarboro ought 
to know, as he is Treasurer of the General Association; but the 
machinery of the Southern Baptist Convention — cost of collections 
and disbursements and Secretary's salary — costs only ten cents on 
the dollar. 



72 Grapeshot and Canister 

is the Teacher, and the Bible is the Text Book. Everybody 
can attend it, tuition free. The Colleges and Seminaries 
are the hot-beds of heresy." (B. B. B., pp. 413-414.) 

Is the foregoing tirade on conventions, colleges, semi- 
naries, and all societies, except a local church, calculated 
to convince the reader that Landmarkers are enthusiasti- 
cally in favor of societies, schools and colleges? 

Our next witness is 

J. H. MILBURN. 

He says: "The efforts of OTHER BODIES or OR- 
GANIZATIONS to assume the work Christ committed 
only to his churches are evidently presumptious sins and 
as such are exceedingly offensive to God." (Mission Meth- 
ods, p. 63.) 

"Christ and his inspired Apostles undoubtedly under- 
stood as well as our Convention brethren and no inspired 
person ever said or did anything so far as the inspired 
record is concerned, to encourage the idea that the churches 
of Christ were not sufficient WITHIN THEMSELVES* 
to accomplish the work which Christ assigned them. Every 
SOCIETY or organization which proposes to undertake 
the evangelization of the world proclaims to the world by 
its very EXISTENCE that Divine wisdom failed to furnish 
the churches the FACILITIES to acomplish the work as- 
signed; they also proclaim by their EXISTENCE that 
the Scriptures are not an all-sufficient rule of faith and 
practice for the children of God." (M. Methods, p. 251.) 

"No Apostle nor inspired person ever chose any OTHER 
organization through which to evangelize the world than the 

*That is, without Christian newspapers, publication societies, 
and without books on Mission Methods. — Ed. 



Landmarkism and Innovation 73 

church. The primitive churches themselves never chose 
ANY OTHEE organization through which to evangelize 
the world; . . . Baptist churches GOT ALONG for 
over seventeen hundred years without choosing ANY 
OTHER organization through which to evangelize the 
world, than the churches of Christ. ... To choose 
any OTHER organization or MEDIUM through which to 
evangelize the world, than the churches REFLECTS on 

the WISDOM of Christ The like of this offers 

an INSULT to Christ and to the Holy Spirit." (M. 
Methods, p. 281.) 

"Of all the blighting and withering CURSES with 
which the Baptist cause has ever been CURSED Theolog- 
ical Seminaries have been and are the WORST." (M. 
Methods, p. 221.) 

If these be not the words of a madman, driven insane by 
the continued maltreatment of his brethren, they can mean 
but ONE thing, and that is : The New Testament Churches 
had no Sunday Schools, therefore, we should have no Sun- 
day Schools ; the New Testament churches had no religious 
newspapers, therefore, we should have no religious news- 
papers ; the New Testament churches had no Book Houses, 
therefore, we should have no book houses ; the New Testa- 
ment churches had no publication societies, therefore, we 
should have no publication societies; the New Testament 
churches had no outside organizations of any kind what- 
soever, therefore, WE should have no outside organizations 
of any kind whatsoever; the New Testament churches had 
no books published on Missions and Mission Methods, 
therefore, WE should have no books published on Missions 
and Mission Methods: the New Testament churches had 



74 Orapeshot and Canister 

no mission Committee, consisting of just thirty members, 
whose business it was to recommend missionaries to the 
churches, therefore, WE should have no mission Committee 
of thirty members to recommend missionaries to the churches 
like the Committee of the General Association; the New 
Testament churches had no Theological Seminaries, there- 
fore, "of all the blighting and withering curses with which 
the Baptist cause has ever been cursed Theological Semi- 
naries are the worst." Such is the logic (?) of Eev. J. 
H. Milburn, Editor, Author and Pugilist. Shades of Aris- 
totle, Kepler and Byron! Eeader, think of it. All the 
traitors and liars and adulterers and fornicators, known or 
unknown, with which the church has been CURSED, from 
Judas Iscariot to Bill Hicks — ALL these have not been 
such "blighting and withering curses," in the judgment of 
Eev. J. H. Milburn, as Theological Seminaries. 

The next witness we introduce to prove that the Land- 
markers are in principle against Associations, Committees, 
or any organization, other than a local church is 

w. M. WEBB, 
the Managing Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, which is 
the organ of the Landmark Association. Editor Webb 



"Baptist churches are the ONLY DIVINE organizations 
in the world." (Arkansas Baptist, Feb. 2, 1910.) 

"There is no Scripture authorizing ANY KIND of an 
organized body for doing mission work or executing the 
commission as delivered by Jesus Christ and recorded in 
Matt. 28 :19, 20, EXCEPT the churches of Jesus Christ. 

"Jesus nowhere authorizes his churches to be constitu- 
ent parts of ANY other organized body. There is no Scrip- 



Landmarkism and Innovation 75 

ture for a treasurer to receive and disburse funds as he may 
decide best." (In Ark. Bap., Feb. 10, 1910.) 

"Churches of Christ should take back their God-given 
commission; send out and support their own missionaries 
independent of any kind of modern organizations, started 
by men." (In Ark. Bap., March 30, 1910.) 

"We belong to that class of Baptists who believe that the 
churches of Jesus Christ are fully competent to meet the 
religious needs of all God's people and they can do that 
without the help of any outside, HUMAN organization. 
They are the only divine organizations in the world today. 
All others are but cumber ers of the ground and some day 
our Heavenly Father will CUT THEM DOWN." (In Ark. 
Bap., Dec. 15, 1909.) 

"If conventions, Boards and ASSOCIATIONS are not 
mentioned in the Bible and were unknown among Bap- 
tists for over 1,600 years, why do so many of oui learned 
brethren still contend and support them to the disparage- 
ment of the churches of Christ? Associations are of 
human origin. No ASSOCIATION existed till about 
1650, and no mission SOCIETY apart from the church 
till 1792." (In Ark. Bap., Sept. 7, 1910). 

"Of course, everyone knows that Jesus never commis- 
sioned his churches to build SCHOOLS," etc. (In Ark. 
Bap., May 11, 1910.) 

"The Central Baptist Church (Little Kock) have agreed 
to do their mission work on the New Testament plan — 
independent of ALL GENERAL ORGANIZATIONS and 
direct from church to missionary." (Webb, in A. B., 
June 8, 1910.) 

Of the things the Landmarkers stand for, this is the 



76 Grapeshot and Canister 

sum : No organization but a local church, no mission soci- 
eties, no conventions, no publication societies, no Associa- 
tions, and no Treasurers of Associations. According to 
Webb, every organization but a church — our Sunday 
schools, newspaper organizations, publication societies, con- 
ventions, book concerns, seminaries, and even our associa- 
tions, are human institutions, which are but "cumberers 
of the ground and some day our Heavenly Father will cut 
them down/' 

This is Landmarkism, Gospel missionism, and Webb- 
ism pure and simple. Perhaps the reader has already solil- 
oquized with himself : Why is W. M. Webb, who is opposed 
to any kind of conventions or associations, and all kinds 
of organizations other than a local church; why is he yet 
retained as the Managing Editor of the Arkansas Baptist ? 
Webb has as little fellowship for the General Association 
Committee of thirty that recommends and appoints mis- 
sionaries as he has for the State Convention Board of sixty, 
which recommends and appoints missionaries. The Board 
is appointed by the Convention, and none but messengers 
can represent in the Convention; the Committee is ap- 
pointed by the General Association, and none but messen- 
gers can represent in the Association. Then why do they 
retain him as Editor? 

We will now introduce Bro. Webb's fellowhelper, the 
Editor in Chief of the Arkansas Baptist, 

BEN M. BOGARD, 

whom Milburn says is the "greatest oral controversialist in 
the United States." While Milburn may have him just a 
little overrated, as we think he has, yet with the Land- 



LandmarJcism and Innovation 77 

markers in this section Bogard is Yea and Amen — he is 
their leading oracle. But hear what he says : 

"The ONLY organized effort recognized in the New 
Testament for the WORK of missions is the LOCAL con- 
gregations of baptized believers. Since the commission 
to evangelize the world was given to the churches it fol- 
lows that the churches are the ONLY organizations au« 
thorized to do mission WORK. Any OTHER organiza- 
tion that may undertake the WORK is a USURPER, a 
LAW-BREAKER, no matter how good the intention of 
such an organization may be. The Lord gave the commis- 
sion to evangelize the world to the church. The Church 
still holds that commission and any Convention or BOARD 
that presumes to do the WORK is going into the work 
without a commission and is a USURPER, a violator of 
Divine law. The INDIVIDUAL Church should send the 
missionary. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we read of a 
Convention appointing a BOARD or COMMITTEE for 
any purpose whatever. Such a thing as a Convention is 
unknown to the Scriptures. Such a thing is, therefore, a 
USURPER, a VIOLATOR of Divine law and should 
not be TOLERATED by the Churches." (Bogard, Bap- 
tist-Way Book, 1908, pp." 24, 25, 26, 27.) 

This is the same Ben M. Bogard who declared that Con- 
ventions and Boards were settled by the Scriptures, were 
Scriptural (Christian Union, pp. 56-64), and that those 
who use them are the Primitive Baptists, but those who 
do NOT use them are NOT the Primitive Baptists. (Way- 
Book, pp. 24-27.) 

And he has been selling both of these books at the same 
time in the same community. In which of them does he 



78 Grapeshot and Canister 

tell the TRUTH ? Can a fountain send forth both pure 
and salt water ? In their search for some new method that 
appeals to the inherent mercenary motive in men, like Tay- 
lor and Parker and Alexander Campbell, Scarboro and Mil- 
burn and Webb and Bogard have not only denounced Con- 
ventions in the most intemperate terms, but they have 
pronounced as unscriptural all ASSOCIATIONS, Com- 
mittees, Boards, SOCIETIES, in fact ALL organizations 
besides a local Church. They and the Founder of Camp- 
bellism, cited elsewhere in these pages, occupy common 
ground on the mission question. The Hardshells, after 
eighty years of drifting, have not yet gotten so far along 
as to denounce ASSOCIATION'S as unscriptural. But 
this is the inevitable logic of Scarboroism, Milburnism, 
Webbism, Bogardism, Landmarkism of the modern type. 
It is Hardshellism raised to the Nth power. No Conven- 
tions, no Boards, no Associations, no Committees, no 
Treasurers : ALL these, according to Bogard, are "usurp- 
ers and violators of Divine law, and should not be tolerated 
by the Churches." See his own words. 

The whole trend of this Gospel Mission movement is 
toward Hardshellism. Everything they write on the sub- 
ject points that way. Read again carefully their own 
words. W. M. Webb, Office Editor Arkansas Baptist, says : 

"Brother M. P. Matheny preached a great Gospel Mis- 
sion sermon at the General Association. (Dec, 1909.) 
He declared that the Scriptures knew nothing of Commit- 
tes, Boards, Associations and Conventions, etc. He truly 
said that ALL the co-operation known to the Word of 
God was co-operation between the preacher, the Holy 
Spirit and the churches. It was TRULY a great sermon 



Landmarlcism and Innovation 79 

and it was WELL received by the CONGREGATION." 
(In Ark. Bap., Dec. 22, 1909.) 

If they do not in the foregoing words deny the Scrip- 
turalness of Committees and Associations et al, words are 
without meaning. Yet this same M. P. Matheny was made 
Chairman of a Missionary Committee of thirty members 
by that same Landmark Association before whom he 
preached that "great sermon" against the Scripturalness 
of "Committees and Associations." 

He is NOW (1910) Chairman of a Board of Trustees of 
sixteen members, and a member of the Executive Commit- 
tee of the State Association," the duty of which Committee 
will be to EXECUTE the expressed will of the co-operat- 
ing churches through their mesengers to this Association 
during the INTERIM in aiding the churches as their 
Committee in the distribution of information, LOCAT- 
ING and recomending FIELDS of labor for missionaries, 
in RAISING and distributing FUNDS," etc. (Minutes, 
1910.) Truly the legs of the lame are not equal. They 
say Committees are Unscriptural, yet they have such Com- 
mittees; they say Associations are Unscriptural, yet they 
work with such Associations; they say that "Theological 
schools are the most blighting and withering CURSES 
with which our Baptist cause has ever been CURSED" 
(see Milburn), yet this man who declares every institution 
Unscriptural, except a local church, is made Chairman of 
a Board of Trustees with the view of trying to build a 
theological school, which one of their leading writers de- 
clares is a "withering CURSE," a denominational school 
which Ben M. Bogard, the Editor of their State organ, 
declares should not exist. On this Bogard has spoken posi- 



80 Grapeshot and Canister 

tively. He says: "We do NOT believe there OUGHT to 
be any DENOMINATIONAL Schools. Let the individual 
and the State educate, and let the churches evangelize. 
THAT, IN BRIEF, IS OUK DOCTRINE/' (Bogard 
in Landmark Baptist, now Ark. Bap., April 20, 1904.) 
If Bogard is honest in what he says then he does not be- 
lieve in denominational schools; if he is NOT honest in 
what he says, then he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But 
if he does not believe in denominational schools, as he 
positively avers, then why, WHY, is he indorsed as the 
Editor of their State paper? There can be but ONE an- 
swer : The Landmark Association is, in principle, as their 
leaders affirm, against theological schools, colleges, and all 
outside organizations, other than a local church. They 
are going toward Hardshellism at a rapid pace if their own 
words are to be relied on; their progress in that direction 
will appear to all who read their published utterances. 

Note carefully what these Landmark agitators say in 
their publications extant and you will agree with us that 
Milburnism and Clarkism and Mathenyism and Webbism 
and Bogardism and Scarboroism is none other than em- 
bryonic Campbellism and infantile Hardshellism sand- 
wiched with enough truth to mislead a few unwary but 
honest enthusiasts. Strike the parallel and see for your- 
self. First, take 

THE LANDMARKERS. 

Hear W. M. Webb, present Office Editor of the Arkansas 
Baptist : 

"There is no Scripture authorizing any kind of an or- 
ganized body for doing mission work, etc., except the 



Landmarkism and Innovation 81 

churches of Jesus Christ. Jesus nowhere authorizes his 
churches to be constituent parts of any other organized 
body. There is no Scripture for a Treasurer to receive and 
disburse funds as he may decide best." (Arkansas Bap- 
tist, Feb. 10, 1910.) Again he says: "If Conventions, 
Boards and ASSOCIATIONS, are not mentioned in the 
Bible and were unknown among Baptists for over 1,600 
years, why do so many of our learned brethren contend 
and support them?" (In Ark. Bap., Sep., 1910.) 

If that is not ANTI-association and ANTI-organization, 
we don't know how to read. Next take M. P. Matheny, 
who is member of their Executive Mission Committee, 
Chairman of a College Board, and Moderator of the Gen- 
eral Association for 1910-1911. Of this triple office 
Brother, Editor Webb says: 

"Brother M. P. Matheny preached a great gospel mis- 
sion sermon at the General Association. (Dec, 1909.) 
He declared that the Scriptures knew nothing of Commit- 
tees, Boards, Associations, etc. He TRULY SAID* that 
ALL the co-operation known to the Word of God was co- 
operation between the preacher, the Holy Spirit and the 
churches. It was TKULY a great sermon, and it was 
well received by the CONGREGATION." (Webb, Ark. 
Bap., Dec. 22, 1909.) 

According to Editor Webb, the General Association evi- 
dently approved that sermon, and, therefore, they go be- 
fore the public as declaring that Committees and Associa- 
tions, and ALL like organizations are unscriptural. If this 
be not true, words have no meaning. Now take W. A. 
Clark, who for twenty-five years edited the Arkansas Bap- 

*Here Webb fully endorsed Matheny 's position. — Ed. 



B2 Grapeshot and Canister 

tist in the interest of the Arkansas Baptist State Conven- 
tion, but for reasons turned the paper against the Conven- 
tion. Dr. Clark says: "This is the age of organization 
and organization may mean some good, but it is fraught 
with many perils. Organization implies leadership in an 
ASSOCIATION, in which individual interests are pooled 
and controlled by the management, and the management 
endowed with a power that chafes at criticism. As a re- 
sult of this pooling of the "Energies" of the Baptist 
churches in the South, a horde of ecclesiastical and clerical 
bosses has been created, whose passion for power is in- 
satiable and whose consciences are merged into the OR- 
GANIZATION." (Ark. Baptist, 1904.) 

That language is clearly against associations and all 
other organizations, other than a local church, whose pur- 
pose is to do mission work. 

Hear J. H. Milburn, an author and religious pugilist of 
no mean repute among the Landmarkers ; no one can mis- 
take his meaning. He says : 

"Christ and the inspired Apostles undoubtedly under- 
stood as well as our Convention brethren and no inspired 
person ever said or did anything so far as the inspired rec- 
ord is concerned, to encourage the idea that the churches 
of Christ were not sufficient WITHIN THEMSELVES 
(without Associations, etc. — Ed.) to accomplish the work 
which Christ assigned them. Every SOCIETY or organ- 
ization which proposes to undertake the evangelization of 
the world proclaims to the world by its very existence that 
divine wisdom failed to furnish the churches the facilities 
to accomplish the work assigned; they also proclaim by 
their existence that the Scriptures are NOT an all-suffi- 



Landmark-ism and Innovation 83 

cient rule of faith and practice for the children of God." 
(Mission Methods, pp. 251, 252.) Again, the same author 



"No Apostle nor inspired person ever chose any OTHER 
organization through which to evangelize the world than 
the church. The primitive churches themselves never 
chose any OTHER organization through which to evan- 
gelize the world. Baptist churches got along for over sev- 
enteen hundred years without choosing any OTHER or- 
ganization through which to evangelize the world than the 
Churches of Christ. To choose any OTHER organiza- 
tion or MEDIUM through which to evangelize the world, 
than the churches, reflects on the wisdom of Christ. The 
like of this offers an insult to Christ and to the Holy 
Spirit/' (Idem, p. 281.) 

The foregoing language of Dr. Milburn's may be a little 
confusing to the reader when it is known that the author 
of the language was actually a missionary during 1909- 
1910, sent out by the authority of the State Association 
with the avowed purpose of disrupting Convention 
churches. Said Association was organized in 1902, has its 
Moderator and Clerk and Treasurer and Mission Execu- 
tive Committee, and is, therefore, an organization OTHER 
than a local church, and, according to Dr. Milburn, "offers 
an insult to Christ and to the Holy Spirit." Of religious 
schools Dr. Milburn has this to say: "Of all the blight- 
ing and withering curses with which the Baptist cause has 
ever been CURSED Theological Seminaries have been 
and ARE the WORST." (Mission Methods, p. 221.) 

The reader will please carefully note the unmistakable 
opposition, both to organizations and schools in the fore- 



84 Grapeshot and Canister 

going quotation. Yet they claim that they are in favor of 
religious schools. No wonder they have failed thus far in 
every attempt to build schools. Such duplicity is apparent 
to all. Next, take Dr. J. A. Scarboro, Editor of a little 
Monthly sheet very inappropriately called "Plain Truth," 
which is published in the defense of the General Associa- 
tion. About organizations and schools Dr. Scarboro writes 
as follows: 

''The churches of Christ did their work from the estab- 
lishment of Christianity until 1849 without a mission 
SOCIETY or Board OUTSIDE of local churches." 
(B. B. B., p. 9.) "Baptists deny (I. E., Landmarkers do. 
Ed.) Scripture authority for ALL organizations exclusive 
of the ONE institution — the Church or Churches of 
Christ." (B. B. B., p. 58.) "The Convention-Board sys- 
tem is TODAY (1903) the most dangerous enemy to 
Baptist principles on earth." (B. B. B., p. 269.) "The 
notion that a Seminary educated ministry can save the 
country needs proof. The EDUCATED FAD is a great 
talisman to conjure Baptist pocket-books. We have no 
objection to EDUCATION, to study or learning; what we 
do object to is the old Devil's LIE that the only place 
where one can be educated is in a COLLEGE. The Col- 
leges and Seminaries are the hot-beds of heresy." 
(B. B. B., p. 414.) 

Does such language indicate that its author is very en- 
thusiastically in favor of colleges and seminaries? Such 
intemperate speech may be accounted for when we remem- 
ber that the Author of the language above quoted was an 
ardent Convention man for twenty years and put the best 
of his life into the Convention work, as he himself con- 



Landmarkism and Innovation 85 

fesses, but for reasons left the Convention. (See Ad- 
denda.) We next introduce Ben M. Bogard, Editor, 
author, and religious pugilist for the Landmarkers. If 
Bogard is in favor of organized work the following lan- 
guage from his pen is meaningless : 

"The ONLY organized effort recognized in the New 
Testament for the work of MISSIONS is the LOCAL 
congregation of baptized believers. Since the commis- 
sion to evangelize the world was given to the churches, it 
follows that the churches are the ONLY organizations au- 
thorized to do mission work. Any OTHEE organization 
that may undertake the work is a USURPER, a law- 
breaker, no matter how good the intention of such an 
organization may be." 

"The Lord gave the commission to evangelize the world 
to the Church. The Church still holds that commission 
and any Convention or Board that presumes to do the 
work is going into the work without a commission and is 
a USURPER, a violator of Divine law. The individual 
Church should SEND the missionary. Nowhere in the 
Scriptures do we read of a Convention appointing a 
Board or COMMITTEE for any purpose whatever. Such 
a thing as a CONVENTION is unknown to the Scrip- 
tures. Such a thing is therefore a Usurper, a Violator 
of Divine law, and should not be tolerated by the 
Churches." (Baptist Way-Book, 1908, pp. 24-27.) 

On the question of Schools, Editor Bogard says : 

"We do not believe there ought to be ANY DENOMI- 
NATIONAL schools. Let the individual and the State 
EDUCATE, and let the churches evangelize. That in 



86 Grapeshot and Canister 

brief is OUK doctrine." (Landmark Baptist, April 20, 
1904.) 

This is the same Ben M. Bogard who declares with such 
confidence in one Book that Conventions and Boards and 
Committees are Scriptural, and that those who use them 
are Primitive Baptists (Christian Union, pp. 56-64), and 
positively avers in another Book that Conventions and 
Boards and Committees are NOT Scriptural, and that those 
who DO use them are NOT Primitive Baptists. (Way- 
Book, pp. 24-27.) 

In the foregoing quotation Bogard is opposed to "a 
Board or Committee for any purpose whatever/' Yet this 
same Bogard, who does not believe in "denominational 
schools," nor "Boards nor Committees," and "no organiza- 
tions outside of the churches," is NOW (1910) a member 
of the Board of the "Southern Baptist University" which 
they hope to build, CHAIRMAN of the Executive Com- 
mittee of the State Association, and the author of a Reso- 
lution providing "That a Committee of three be AP- 
POINTED by the Moderator (of the State Association), 
which shall give bond in the sum of at least $5,000, who 
shall have in charge the permanent Bible and Tract Fund. 
This COMMITTEE is instructed to publish cheap or 
free literature setting forth Landmark principles and ex- 
plaining our METHODS of work; also to distribute cheap 
or free Testaments and Bibles. That this Bible and Tract 
Committee be instructed to make REPORTS to the State 
Association. Ben M. Bogard." (Minutes State Associ- 
ation, 1910, pp. 2, 27.) He is the same Ben M. Bogard 
who said this week editorially: 

"We must have NO organization outside of the churches. 



LandmarJcism and Innovation 87 

As to the New Testament, UNDOUBTEDLY there was 
at least ONE association — the Macedonian Association — 
that had a Committee, that elected messengers, and those 
messengers MET together." (Ark. Baptist, Dec. 14, 1910, 
p. 8.) 

With such leaders carrying fast and loose, first on one 
side and then on the other, is it any wonder that "some 
of the brethren keep saying that ASSOCIATIONS were 
unknown to the Bible and for the first seventeen hundred 
years after Christ." (Bogard, Ark. Bap., Dec. 14, 1910, 
p. 8.) Should it astonish anyone that: "It is high time 
that Landmark Baptists cease to misrepresent one another 
and thus help the Conventionites to tear down the work 
which it has taken years of toil and hardship, amidst per- 
secution, to establish." (Bogard, A. B., Dec. 14, 1910, 
p. 8.) If the Leaders be dogmatically on both sides of the 
Mission question at the same times, sometimes, as Milburn 
and Scarboro and Bogard are shown to be by their own 
books, no marvel if their credulous followers get astride 
the fence and fuss among themselves about which side 
they are on. Just think of it. In one breath Bogard 
says: 

"We must have NO organization OUTSIDE of the 
church. The State and General Associations are NOT 
organizations" (A. B., Dec. 14, 1910), and in the same 
article upbraids his confused followers for "misrepresent- 
ing one another." 

Bogard has been Moderator of both the State and Gen- 
eral Associations, and is NOW Chairman of their Mission 
Board or Committee, and a member of their Board of 
Trustees, and yet to cover up his "confusion worse con- 



88 Grapeshoi and Canister 

founded/' he declares in his latest Editorial that a the State 
and General Associations are NOT organizations." Such 
filibustering and juggling with words is morally criminal 
in one that has sense enough to be Moderator of an Asso- 
ciation or Chairman of a Committee. . The "State Asso- 
ciation NOT an organization?" On page 3 of Minutes 
of State Association we read: 

"The State Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches 
met in the meeting house of Big Creek Baptist Church, 
Sheridan, Ark., on Thursday night at 7 o'clock, November 
10, 1910. On motion of Eld. M. P. Matheny, the MES- 
SENGEBS went into permanent ORGANIZATION, waiv- 
ing the report of the Enrollment Committee. The vote 
for Moderator and Clerk was taken by ballot without nomi- 
nations, and resulted as follows : Eld. J. L. Brown, Mod- 
erator; W. B. Cross, Assistant Moderator; C. B. Powell, 
Clerk; J. A. Scarboro, Assistant Clerk. The Moderator 
APPOINTED Elders Wm. Tucker, Miles Kelley, and the 
pastor and messengers of Sheridan Church as a committee 
on Divine Services. Elders Ben M. Bogard, W. A. 
Crutchfield and J. I. Martin were appointed by the Mod- 
erator as a Committee on Order of Business. W. B. Cross 
offered an amendment to Article VII, Section 1, of the 
declaration of Principles ; Adopted. J. A. Scarboro offered 
an amendment to Article X; adopted." 

On page 7 of the same Minutes we read : 

"Eld. J. A. Scarboro read a resolution on Education, 
which was adopted, and J. A. Scarboro, Ben M. Bogard 
and M. P. Matheny were appointed to carry out the pro- 
visions of the resolution. On motion the MESSENGERS 
went into the SELECTION of four missionaries, which 



Landmarkism and Innovation 89 

resulted as follows: W. E. Sherrill, C. R. Pole, J. L. 
Brown, B. F. Holford." 

On page 27 of the same Minutes we find the following 
Resolution offered by Dr. Scarboro, which was adopted. 
Carefully note this Resolution in the light of his tirade 
on Theological Schools, given elsewhere in this book: 

"Resolved 2. That in the matter of a Theological 
School, we favor the establishment of such a concern for 
all our people, etc. And in order to further this enter- 
prise this Association appoint a COMMITTEE of three, 
empowering them to confer with the General Association 
at its approaching session, and with like COMMITTEES, 
churches or Associations in the States, with a view to 
securing the co-operation of all our Landmark Baptists 
in the establishment of a Landmark Baptist Theological 
School for ALL the States, and this COMMITTEE to 
proceed to co-operate with any COMMITTEE of the Gen- 
eral Association in the prosecution of the enterprise, and 
report both to the next SESSION of this body." 

Is there any organization about that? Is not a BODY 
which elects a Moderator, Clerk, Treasurer, appoints Com- 
mittees and Boards of Trustees, elects missionaries, passes 
resolutions to build theological schools, adopts and amends 
Declarations of Principles, and which is a self-constituted 
Ecclesiastical Inquisition for the whole denomination; is 
not such a body an ORGANIZATION? Why wonder 
that there is so much calumny, and acrimonious conflict 
among them every time they meet? The wonder is that 
there is not more. We think the words of their Com- 
mittee on Education, which was intended for Convention 
people, will apply in this case most fittingly: 



90 Grapeshot and Canister 

"There is a learning that makes exceeding MAD against 
God and divine things and we have MUCH of that kind 
of learning in our day, but that is not the kind which 
Paul had and we want for our children." (Minutes State 
Association, p. 11.) 

But some of our brethren are to be pitied rather than 
blamed, because they just can't help it; they are put 
together wrong. A nobleman, so the story goes, owned a 
very fine canine of which he was very fond. But the dog's 
plaintive cries would sometimes almost drive its owner 
distracted. While in a rage the nobleman seized an ax 
and severed the dog from top to bottom, from lip to tip. 
After this rash act and time for serious reflection the 
nobleman became very serious and determined to rein- 
state his dog, which he did by re-uniting the parts to- 
gether; but in his excitement, to his astonishment, in the 
process he reversed the parts, putting lip with tip and tip 
with lip, and the last state of that dog was worse than the 
first ; for it walked both up and down and barked at both 
ends. It was just put together wrong. It was more to 
be pitied than censured. 



CHAPTEE IV. 

Headed Toward Hardshellism. 

But to further confirm our contention that these Land- 
markers are headed toward ANTI-missions, rapidly ap- 
proaching the Hardshell position, we will introduce the 

HON - . THOS. E. WATSON, 

Editor Watson's Magazine, and The Jeffersonian, claimed 
by the Landmarkers as one of their latest recruits, and 
cordially endorsed by both Landmarkers and Hardshells; 
and it will take an official count to decide which of them 
is the more entitled to him. M. P. Matheny, Moderator 
of the General Association of Landmark Baptists, endorses 
Watson's position on the mission question : 

"There are thousands on thousands who are satisfied 
that Mr. Watson is telling the truth, etc. Oh ! for a thou- 
sand Watsons to battle against the wrongs in Church and 
State." (Matheny, Ark. Bap., Feb. 2, 1910.) 

Ben M. Bogard, Editor Arkansas Baptist, endorses 
Watson : 

"Thos. E. Watson writes with a pen that sparkles. The 
ink he uses is lightning. His exposure of religious and 
political humbuggery is COMPLETE. The exposure of 
Socialism and Conventionism has been going on for a year 

91 



92 Grapeshoi and Canister 

and will continue. THANK God for Tom Watson." 
(Bogard, Ark. Bap., March 30, 1910.) 

W. M. Webb, Office Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, 
heartily endorses Watson's position. He says: 

"Let every lover of TEUTH pray God to give Tom 
Watson a glorious victory for the TRUTH." (Webb, 
Ark. Bap., Jan. 5, 1910.) 

Again Webb says : 

"Tom Watson is hitting some sledgehammer blows 
against the modern MISSION SYSTEM now operated 
by the Boards of the Southern Baptist Convention. All 
HONOR to the man who has the courage to OPPOSE, 
and EXPOSE, this Ungodly System of Greed and 
GRAFT." (Webb, Ark. Bap., Sept. 22, 1909.) 

Our Hardshell friends can and DO heartily endorse 
Watson's position, for they understand him, and rightly, 
to be OPPOSED to Foreign Missions. The Landmarkers 
would make it appear that Watson is only opposed to the 
METHOD, but his own words will not support their 
claim. But hear the Hardshell's endorsement: 

"Will our American people forever submit to being 
taxed to support the present unscriptural modern Mission 
System? Some of them, especially in Georgia, have had 
their eyes opened by the writings of that able, fearless and 
patriotic man, and we FEEL, Christian gentleman, Hon. 
Thos. E. Watson, and they seem to be calling a halt. The 
Idex, that was recently reporting more than $100 per day 
collection for Foreign Missions, is NOW reporting less 
than $25 per day. And yet some people pretend that 
they think Mr. Watson has no influence and that his EX- 
POSURE of FOREIGN MISSIONS will make the sys- 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 93 

tern more popular." (R. H. P., in Primitive Baptist, and 
quoted approvingly in Baptist Trumpet of Nov. 24, 1910. 
Both straight Hardshell papers of the rankest type. — Ed.) 

Now, what have these Landmarkers and Hardshells in- 
dorsed? It is not a question of theological pyrotechnics 
simply. They are not simply indorsing Tom Watson's 
political gymnastic perfomances, which have been chang- 
ing as unsystematically as the weather, but they say frankly 
that they indorse his position on the Mission Question. 
But what is Watson's position on the mission question? 
Fortunately for Tom Watson, and unfortunately for these 
Landmarkers who have indorsed his position unqualifiedly, 
he has gotten off the fence and takes his stand squarely 
on the side of the Hardshells. Here is- what Watson says : 

"We find that the system now in operation is a total 
departure from the practice of Paul, of the disciples, and 
of the early Church, — therefore the burden of proof is 
upon the FANATICS who have fastened to us the system 
which hires' a heathen to call himself a Christian, and 
which tempts the needy of pagan lands to profess conver- 
sion by offering relief from physical suffering." (Foreign 
Missions Exposed, p. 23.) 

Again Mr. Watson says: 

"The Apostles did not squat down in any one com- 
munity and depend upon the HOME CHURCH in Pales- 
tine to send out rations and money and medicine and 
clothes every year. The HOME CHURCH in Judea did 
not take up collections for the Pagans of Syria or Egypt. 
NO. The HOME CHURCH took care of itself, and left 
the new converts in Gentile lands to organize and support 
themselves. ALL that Paul and other pioneers of Christ 



94 Grapeshot and Canister 

did was TO HELP THE NEW TESTAMENT 
CHURCHES WITH ADVICE AND INSTRUCTIONS. 

Study those letters in the New Testament and convince 
yourself. Paul did not set up any schools for secular 
training. He left all such matters to the PEOPLE of 
the several communities in which he labored. He did not 
found colleges to teach the children of Roman parents, 
Greek or Hebrew. NO. He taught the Gospel of Christ, 
JUST AS THE DISCIPLES DID, and he made THAT 
the measure of his mission/' 

"Can you picture Paul running a dispensary, and tramp- 
ing around loaded up with patent medicines, porous plas- 
ters and surgical instruments, eager to give free treatment 
to diseased Mexicans, Brazilians, Koreans and Ceylonese? 
Can you imagine Paul PESTERING THE HOME 
CHURCH to DEATH with his everlasting HOWLS for 
more money — more for the kindergarten in Rome, more 
for the college at Antioch, more for the free schools in 
Greece, and thus making his own country bear the ex- 
pense of doing what Antioch, Rome and Greece should do 
for themselves? Above ALL, can you for one instant 
believe that Paul would have given regular SALARIES 
to the new converts, thus creating the impression among 
the POOR FOLKS of Antioch and Rome that it would 
PAY to turn Christian? NO. It is inconceivable. Paul's 
converts organized their own churches, and all the help 
they ever asked and got from him was ADVICE. His con- 
verts were real, genuine Christians, and they supported 
THEIR OWN churches and schools. Not only that, they 
sent AID to Paul and they put missionaries in DISTANT 
Fields." (Foreign Missions Exposed, p. 24.) 



Headed Toward Hardshellism, 95 

Again : 

"I urged our people to stop where Christ STOPPED, 
where the disciples stopped, where Paul and the early 
Fathers stopped. I urge our people not to do MORE for 
the heathen than Paul and the disciples did, until we have 
FIRST discharged our FULL DUTY to our own flesh and 
blood, our OWN kith and kin, our own national house- 
hold." (Idem., p. 32.) 

Again : 

"Why do boys run off from home to join the army, or go 
to sea? Because it appeals to their IMAGINATION. 
To put the plow-gear on old Mike, the mule, and go to the 
field where the steady feet must walk one monotonous 
furrow after another, with loose soil getting into the shoes 
and the hot sun baking the head, is honorable but not 
romantic. But to run away and join the army! To 
slip off some night and go to sea ! THERE'S novelty for 
you, and romance and adventure. The imagination 
kindles at the thought, fancy paints such a career in 
colors of uniform brightness, and there they go, the Peter 
Simples and Barry Lyndons and ALL their intermediate 
types— to learn in due time that it MIGHT HAVE 
ANSWERED QUITE AS WELL TO HAVE STAYED 
AT HOME. Something of the SAME feeling tempts 
men and women INTO FOREIGN MISSIONS." (Idem., 
p. 42.) 

But hear him further: 

"Who is it that knows to a certainty that a single Ori- 
ental has ever become a sincere Christian? Who is it that 
does not know that if these Eastern people will live up to 
their OWN RELIGIOUS CREEDS they will be good 



96 Grapeshot and Canister 

men and women— JUST AS GOOD AS WE AKE?" 
(Mark well that statement — Ed.) 

"Let us have no narrow-minded foolishness about this: 
ask any honest scholar and he will tell you that these 
Eastern peoples had a BEAUTIFUL, REFINING and 
INSPIRING CODE of morality LONG BEFORE Chris- 
tians met in CONVENTION to vote the ADOPTION of 
these separate writings which constitute the Bible. John 
Wesley maintained that a heathen who lived according to 
the best light he had would be SAVED. Is it not the 
general belief, in this age of INTELLECTUAL FREE- 
DOM, that a Mohammedan, a Buddhist, or a disciple 
of Confucius, who HONESTLY believes in the religion 
of his fathers and who does his utmost to live accord- 
ing to its teachings, will NOT be damned to EVERLAST- 
ING PUNISHMENT? The CREED of these people, 
when faithfully observed, MAKE GOOD MEN; and have 
not our very best preachers declared that our Christian 
religion means: BEING GOOD AND DOING GOOD? 
Will the Father of US ALL send GOOD PEOPLE to 
broil in an eternal HELL? John Wesley said, NO. Who 
will say, YES?" (Idem., pp. 77-78.) 

"To teach and preach abroad is about the same NOW as 
teaching and preaching here. To run the hospital and 
boss the commissary is no more fatiguing in South Amer- 
ica and the Orient than it is in Europe or America. 
Dearly beloved, don't weep any more over the hard life 
of the foreign missionary. The chances are that he is 
having a much better time than YOURSELF. He wears 
up-to-date habiliments, lives on appetizing viands, has 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 97 

comfortable and roomy quarters, smokes good cigars when 
he wants to, and has a'cORKING TIME GENERALLY." 
(Idem, p. 83.) 

But again: 

"How our noble Christian women can rest in peace 
while this diabolical traffic (the white slave trade. — Ed.) is 
going on; how it is that they can go GADDING ABOUT 
THE FOREIGN WORLD, ministering to BLACK women 
in Africa, BROWN women in Hindustan and YELLOW 
women in China, — when there is SO MUCH of agonizing 
TRAGEDY at their own doors, is difficult to understand/' 
(Idem, p. 90.) 

Finally : 

"It is a SIN AND A SHAME— a BURNING wrong 
and disgrace — that we should be forcing these Missionaries 
upon the ALLEGED heathen when we need them so badly 
for millions of our OWN boys and girls. Miss Houston's 
own labors have been principally in Cuba and Mexico, 
Christian COUNTRIES, BOTH. For hundreds of years 
they have been Christian, just as Europe is Christian, and 
just as Armenia is Christian. It is certainly a phenomenal 
state of affairs when the churches of this country are 
asked to PUT UP the CASH for missionary work among 
peoples who have been Christianized for ages. Armenia 
was Von for Christ' more than eighteen hundred years 
ago, and yet we must furnish money for MISSIONARY 
preachers, schools and colleges in Armenia." (Idem, 
p. 94.) 

These quotations are the GIST of all Mr. Watson has 
said in a Pamphlet of 97 pages. Can any of our 
readers doubt for a moment that Tom Watson is against 



98 Grapeshoi and Canister 

Foreign Missions? Do you wonder that the rankest of 
the Hardshells indorse his position? And THIS is what 
Bogard, and Matheny, and Webb have so ardently in- 
dorsed. Please note again carefully what Mr. Watson 
says, upon which we make the following observations: 

1. The foregoing language from our politico-religio- 
critic demonstrates the fact that Landmarkism is awfully 
contagious and that Brother Watson is very susceptible to 
such infectious diseases. Though but an amateur in the 
field of religious controversy he has already developed in 
large measure the two most effective qualities in the de- 
fense of modern Landmarkism : the gifts of innuendo and 
misrepresentation. He has caught the real spirit of Gospel 
Missions. Their motto is to charge and counter-charge 
and surcharge and then discharge. Mr. Watson's insin- 
uation that the Foreign Mission Board "hires a heathen 
to call himself a Christian, and tempts the needy of pagan 
lands to profess conversion by offering RELIEF from 
physical suffering," we denounce as a base fabrication, a 
creation of the system which he has espoused, and a mis- 
representation of some of the best men upon whom the 
sun shines. It's a slander on Jesus and His Apostles. But 
Tom Watson was born in the past tense, subjective mode, 
the objective case, and the object of the verb: Retrench . 
He has been drunk so long on the strong drinks of popu- 
lism and Bryanism that every time a leaf moves he sees 
snakes. His modus operandi has ever been to create sus- 
picion and distrust, then appeal to said distrust and sus- 
picion to accomplish his purpose. He has been a critic 
so long that he is really in a critical condition. 

Did not Jesus heal the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 99 

naked demoniac, unstop the deaf ears, restore sight, pay 
taxes for the preacher, cast out devils, and raise the dead ? 
Did not the Apostles do likewise? Were not all these 
benevolent acts given in "RELIEF from physical suffer- 
ing ?" Did Jesus and His disciples "hire these needy ones 
to become Christians and TEMPT them to profess con- 
version by offering them relief from physical suffering?" 

2. Who informed Mr. Watson that the "Apostles did 
NOT SQUAT down in any one community and depend 
upon the home church?" They did "squat down" at Jeru- 
salem, and remained there until persecution drove them all 
from the city except the preachers (Acts 8:1), and they 
DID DEPEND "upon the home Church in Palestine to 
send out rations and money and medicine and clothes," 
for they "sold their possessions and goods, and parted 
them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:45.) 
If they needed rations they got them, if they needed money 
they got it, if they needed medicine they got it, if they 
needed clothes they got it; and who is Thos. E. Watson, 
that he should declare in the face of Inspiration that it 
isn't SO? 

Paul "squatted down" at Corinth, "and he continued 
there a year and six months, teaching the word of God 
among the people." (Acts 18:11.) He also "squatted 
down" at Rome, "and Paul dwelt TWO WHOLE YEARS 
in his own HIRED house, and received all that came in 
unto him; preaching the kingdom of God, and TEACH- 
ING those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, 
with ALL CONFIDENCE, no man forbidding him." 
(Acts 28:30-31.) Did Paul bear his own expenses on all 
these missionary tours? Did he depend upon the mission 



100 Grapeshot and Canister 

station, or did lie depend upon the "home churches ?" He 
shall be his own witness : 

"Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye 
might be exalted, because I have preached to you the 
Gospel of God freely? I robbed OTHER churches to do 
YOU service. And when I was present with you and 
wanted, I was chargeable to NO MAN (among you 
Corinthians, of course. — Ed.), for that which was lacking 
to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: 
and in all things I have kept myself from being burden- 
some to YOU, and so will I keep myself/' (2 Cor. 11 :7-9.) 

But who were these brethren who supplied his need 
when he was on the mission field ? 

"And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Mace- 
donia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the 
Jews that Jesus was the Christ." (Acts 18:5.) 

Later, when adverting to the kindness of one of these 
home churches, and her loyalty to the mission enterprise, 
he says : 

"Now, ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning 
of the Gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, NO 
CHURCH communicated with me as concerning giving 
and receiving, but YE ONLY. For EVEN in Thessa- 
lonia ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not be- 
cause I desire a GIFT; but I desire FRUIT that may 
abound to your account. But I have ALL, and abound: 
I am FULL, having received of Epaphroditus the things 
which were sent from YOU, an odor of a sweet smell, a 
SACRIFICE acceptable, WELL-PLEASING to God. 
But my God shall supply all YOUR NEED according to 
His riches in glory by Jesus Christ." (Phil. 4:15-19.) 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 101 

The churches SUPPLIED ALL His need, whether it 
were bread, clothing, medicine, house rent for Paul's "own 
hired house." The command is to "GO, MAKE disciples, 
and baptize them, and teach them." (Matthew 28 :19-20.) 
If you haven't got a place to preach, get one; if you have 
not a place to baptize, make one; if you may not be ad- 
mitted to the schools already to hand, like the School of 
Tyrannus (Acts 91:9), BUILD ONE. When the mis- 
sionaries can speak with tongues without learning them, 
and when the natives can understand without being taught, 
then let our critic stand up and he shall be heard. If 
Tom Watson cannot keep this civilized country half 
straight, either politically or religiously, with a "Jeffer- 
sonian Magazine" and a "Weekly Jeffersonian," HOW can 
the Churches reach the Priest-ridden Papal field, where 
the people are kept in ignorance, or the idolater who bows 
to stocks and stones, without schools and colleges and the 
Word of God? 

3. But our critic continues: "Can you picture Paul 
running a dispensary, eager to give free treatment, etc?" 
Wrong again, Bro. Watson. Get your Bible. In the very 
beginning, healing and preaching and teaching went to- 
gether. Jesus himself set the example, and commanded 
others to do likewise: 

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, Teaching in their 
synagogues, and Preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and 
Healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease 
among the people." (Matt. 4:23.) 

The twelve did the same thing : 

"And when He had called unto him His twelve dis- 
ciples, He gave them power against unclean spirits to cast 



102 Grapeshot and Canister 

them out, and to HEAL all manner of sickness and all 
manner of disease. These twelve Jesus sent forth, saying : 
'As ye GO, preach, saying the kingdom of heaven is at 
hand/" (Matt. 10:1-7.) 

The same principle and practice was adhered to with 
the seventy evangelists : 

"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy 
also, and sent them two and two before His face, into 
every city and place, whither He Himself would come. 
Therefore said He unto them: 'Go your ways; carry 
neither purse, nor script, nor shoes; the laborer is worthy 
of his HIRE, etc. HEAL the sick, and say unto them, 
The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." (Lu. 
10 :1-11.) Peter and John healed the lame man at the 
gate. Beautiful, and attracted the admiration and atten- 
tion of ALL the people for their good. (Acts 3:1-16.) 
Peter also gave Eneas "relief from physical suffering," and 
"all that dwelt in Lydda and Sara saw him and turned to 
the Lord." (Acts 9 :32-35.) 

Were they "hired to profess conversion/' Brother Wat- 
son? Did it PAY to give attention to their bodily suffer- 
ing ; pay religiously ? 

When that impotent man was HEALED at Lystra, "and 
when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up 
their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia : The gods 
are come down to us in the likeness of men." When they 
gave the man "relief from physical suffering," Paul and 
Barnabas "Preached unto them that they should turn 
from these vanities to the living God." (Acts 14:8-15.) 
But it will be said : This was miraculous healing. Well. 
But the principle was there just the same. Heal, preach, 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 103 

teach — was their program. And Paul was certainly NOT 
a Landmarker nor a Hardshell of the Watson and Bogard 
and Milburn and Scarboro and Webb type, for he kept 
Luke, "the beloved physician," right by his side. (Col. 
4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11.) But our critic says: "I urged our 
people to STOP where Christ stopped, where the disciples 
stopped, where Paul and the early Fathers stopped. I 
UKGE our people NOT to do more for the heathen than 
Paul and the disciples did." All right, Bro. Watson, when 
you Hardshells and Landmarker s get to healing without a 
physician, we'll call in all our medical missionaries off the 
field. Put up, Bro. Watson, or shut up. The Land- 
markers are afraid we'll do too much. They are the 
watch-dogs of the denominational treasury. And they are 
proud of their self-appointed task. They are afraid the 
money that somebod} r else gives will be misspent, and the 
Lord's treasury will become depleted. They "urge the 
people not to do MOPE for the heathen than Paul and the 
disciples did, UNTIL we have first discharged our FULL 
duty to our own flesh and blood, our own kith and kin, 
our own national household." Be it said to their credit, 
that they consistently practice what they preach in this 
regard. The General Association of the whole United 
States of America received last year "for all the work" the 
enormous sum of $6,495.68. This was for their Foreign 
and Home Mission work for 1909. (See Minutes General 
Association, 1909, p. 17.) We admire their consistency, 
but deplore their arrogance and delinquency. It is not 
their poverty; they have the money. But their leaders, 
like Watson & Co., "urge them not to do more than Paul 
did" for the heathen until they have converted America. 



104 Grapeshot and Canister 

The result is they are doing practically nothing at home or 
abroad but to sit in judgment on the money that other 
folks give. They spend their time tabulating statistics 
and juggling with figures to make false impressions, and 
then raise the howl that the "Lord's money," not one 
dollar of which THEY have given, is misused to pay doc- 
tors and teachers and blacksmiths, etc. If their CON- 
TRIBUTIONS were equal to their CASTIGATIONS, the 
very mountains would tremble before the onward march 
of our missionary forces. But these critics, these SELF- 
appointed critics ! How they love their job ! What a 
fuss they make ! But it has ever been true that a pullet 
will make more noise when she lays her first little egg 
than a ten-mule team pulling a commissary department. 
"We beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more, 
that yer study to be QUIET, and to DO YOUR OWN 
BUSINESS, and to WORK with your OWN hands, that 
ye may walk HONESTLY toward them that are without." 
(Paul, 1 Thess. 4:10-12.) 

Such advice, however, is wholly out of place to Land- 
markers, who are practically out of the Lord's business, 
and have no business of their own but to FUSS ; for how 
can they, whose business it is to FUSS, "be QUIET and 
do their own business?" The Landmark General Asso- 
ciation of the United States raised for ALL purposes last 
year (1909), as reported in their Minutes, $6,495.68. They 
reported ten missionaries : seven at work as Home Mission- 
aries in the United States, reporting 199 baptisms; three 
of them were Foreign Missionaries, at least ONE of whom 
is a Physician, all reporting 19 baptisms. They separated 
from the Regular Missionary Baptists in April, 1902, and 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 105 

organized the State Landmark Association, and later the 
General Association. These are the folks who are so loud 
in their complaints of what Convention people do. Should 
they not DO more, and FUSS less? 

4. But did Paul and the other Disciples convert every 
one in the home field before they went abroad ? To the law 
and the testimony; if they speak not according this word, 
it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8 :20.) Get 
your Book, Brother Watson. Their very Commission for- 
bade them staying at HOME until they had converted all 
their "own flesh and blood, kith and kin, and their own 
national household." "This gospel of the kingdom," said 
Jesus, "shall be preached in ALL the world for a witness 
unto ALL nations; and THEN shall the end come." 
(Matt. 24:14.) "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of 
ALL nations, baptizing them and teaching them," etc. 
(Matt. 28:19-20.) Again Jesus said: "Go ye into ALL 
THE WORLD, and preach the Gospel to EVEEY crea- 
ture." (Mark 16:15.) And again: "Thus it is written, 
and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 
dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of 
sins should be preached in His name AMONG ALL NA- 
TIONS, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses 
of THESE THINGS. And behold, I send the promise 
of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jeru- 
salem UNTIL ye be endued with power from on high." 
(Lu. 24:46-49.) "And he said unto them: Ye shall 
receive POWER, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon 
you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem 
(city missions), and in Judea (state missions), and Sama- 



106 Grapeshot and Canister 

ria (home missions), and unto the uttermost part of the 
earth (foreign missions). (Acts 1:8.) 

But the Watsonian-Hardshell-Landmark translation 
reads on this wise : 

"The Convention folks are spending lots of money which 
WE DID NOT GIVE; STAY at HOME, therefore, until 
you have discharged your full duty to your own flesh and 
blood, kith and kin, your own national household. He that 
criticiseth the most and doeth the least shall be exalted to 
leadership among the Landmarkers, and, lo, he shall be 
lauded for his critical sagacity, and praised most wonder- 
fully by the Hardshells for his opposition to Missions." 

Now, we are morally certain that Paul and Barnabas 
were not Baptists after the Watsonian type; had they 
stayed at home like Watson "urges" his people to do, ALL 
Europe would probably have been without the Gospel till 
this day : "Now, when they had gone through Prygia and 
the region of Galatia, and were FOEBIDDEN of the Holy 
Spirit to preach the word in Asia ; after they were come to 
Mysia, they ASSAYED to go into Bithynia : but the Spirit 
suffered them NOT. And they passing by Mysia came 
down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the 
night; there stood a man of Macedonia and prayed him, 
saying: Come OVEE INTO Macedonia and help us. 
And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeav- 
ored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the 
Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them." 
(Acts 16:6-34.) 

These men wanted to stay at HOME, just as Watson 
UEGES; they wanted to stay in their own nation until 
their "own kith and kin" were converted; they wanted to 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 107 

be Landmark-Baptists, but the Spirit forbade them. The 
Apostle "assuredly gathered from the vision" that the Lord 
did not want him to stay in the homeland "until he had 
done his full duty to his own flesh and blood, kith and kin," 
that the Gospel must be preached "in all the world for a 
witness to all nations," that the Commission takes us from 
"Jerusalem to the uttermost part of the earth." If Brother 
Watson would read his Bible he would learn this much 
without a vision. 

5. But our critic continues his castigations. We can 
almost hear his dying groans. Conventionism has pes- 
tered him NEAELY TO DEATH. He says: 

"Can you imagine Paul PESTEEING the home Church 
to DEATH with his everlasting howls for MOEE MONEY, 
etc.?" There are two symptoms that will, without fail, 
help one to determine a sure-enough case of modern Land- 
markism: (1) The patient dislikes exceedingly to be 
asked for money, and (2) he is ravenously fond of directing 
the money that other people give. All Hardshells are 
almost "pestered to death" by appeals for money. But did 
Paul pester the churches for money? Get your Bible, 
Brother Watson. 

"Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?" 
(The Hardshells.) "Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth 
not of the fruit thereof?" (The Hardshells.) "Who feed- 
eth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?" (The 
Hardshells.) "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, 
is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" 
(Yes, it is a GEE AT thing : Watson says it "pesters him 
nearly to death.") "Do ye not know that they which min- 
ister about holy things live of the things of the temple? 



108 Grapeshot and Canister 

and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the 
altar?" (Yes, we knew it, but Watson says that such an 
"everlasting howl for money pesters him to death.") "Even 
SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the 
Gospel should live of the Gospel." (1 Cor. 9 :7-14.) Yes, 
Paul, but HOW these appeals for money do "pester" our 
Landmark brethren. But the Apostle keeps up his cry 
for money: 

"Moreover, brethren, we would have you know the grace 
of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia (Philippi, 
Thessalonica, et al., that helped Paul when Corinth was a 
Missionary Station. 2 Cor. 11:8, 9; Phil. 4:15; Acts 
18:1-8), how that in a great trial of affliction the abun- 
dance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto 
the riches of their liberality ! for to their power, yea, and 
BEYOND their power they were willing of themselves, 
praying us that with much entreaty we would receive the 
GIFT and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering 
to the saints. And this they did, not as we hoped, but 
first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto US by 
the will of God. Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as 
he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same 
grace also. Therefore, as ye abound in every thing (Hear 
it, Brother Watson), in Faith, and UTTERANCE (think 
our Landmark brethren are pretty well up on utterance), 
and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to 
us, see that ye abound in this GRACE also. (The grace of 
giving.) I speak not by commandment (but our Land- 
mark brethren say the METHOD is as much commanded 
as the doctrines and ordinances), but by occasion of the 
forwardness of others (Paul thought Corinth ought to try 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 109 

to keep up with the procession), and to prove the sincerity 
of your LOVE. (Paul thought giving was a proof of sin- 
cerity and love ; but such appeals "pesters the Landmarkers 
to death.") For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He be- 
came poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich. And 
herein I give my ADVICE : for this is EXPEDIENT for 
you, who have begun before, not only to DO but also to 
be FORWARD a year ago. (Mission METHODS are not 
in the order of commandments, as the Landmarkers and 
Hardshells vainly teach, but they are in the role of expe- 
diency. How this does "pester" Brother Watson and the 
Gospel Mission brethren.) Now, therefore, perform the 
DOING of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so 
there may be a PERFORMANCE (hear it, Brother Wat- 
son) also out of that which ye have. For if there be first 
a willing mind it is accepted according to that a man 
hath, and NOT according to that he hath not. (But if 
there is an unwilling mind, it will croak, and criticise, and 
castigate, and calumniate, and calculate, and will NOT 
co-operate.) For I mean not that other men be eased, and 
ye burdened: but by an equality, that now at this time 
your abundance may be a supply for their want, that 
THEIR abundance also may be a supply for YOUR want : 
that there may be equality." (2 Cor. 8 :1-14.) 

This is exactly what Convention people do today: and 
exactly what Landmarkers say they are opposed to. We 
help where we think it will do the most good, and where 
such help promises the best returns for the kingdom of 
God. This was Paul's ADVICE, which he calls "expe- 
dient" — good policy. And THIS is what Watson & Co. 



110 Grapeshot and Canister 

call "subsidizing, hiring the heathen to become Christians, 
and tempting them to profess conversion." Fortunately 
for Convention policies, we have Paul with us, if the Land- 
markers are against us. JSTo wonder this "everlasting howl 
for money pesters them to death." But Paul is not 
through ; he keeps up "an everlasting howl about money." 
Hear him, Brother Watson : 

"But as touching the ministering to the saints, it is 
superfluous for me to write to you: for I know the for- 
wardness of your mind (they had a mind to give), for 
which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia 
was ready a YEAR ago (no doubt made her pledge at the 
last Convention), and your Zeal hath PROVOKED very 
many. (Wholesome emulation is another good Convention 
policy, but it "pesters" the Landmarkers mightily.) But 
have I sent the brethren (Financial Agents), lest our 
boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf ; that as I 
said, ye may be ready. (He had been making "an ever- 
lasting howl for money" to the churches of Macedonia 
about the promptness and liberality of the Church at 
Corinth, and they must not fail him now at a pivotal point 
in the collection. This is straight Conventionism, and it 
greatly "pesters" our brethren.) Lest haply if they of 
Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we, 
that we say not YE, should be ASHAMED in the same 
confident boasting. (How Convention-like! The churches 
ought *o have some denominational pride, and they ought 
to be ashamed of themselves when they have none. ) There- 
fore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren (the 
Financial Agents), that they would go before unto you, 
and make up beforehand your bounty (still "howling about 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 111 

money"), whereof ye had notice before (they were duly 
notified that the money was wanted), that the same might 
be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not of covetousness. 
(He did not care to filch it from them, but he wanted it, 
and he was making an "everlasting howl" about it ; and no 
doubt it "pestered" many of the brethren.) But this I 
say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; 
and he that soweth bountifully (hear it, Brother Watson) 
shall reap also bountifully. (He wanted mone}^, and he 
wanted lots of it.) Every man according as he purposeth 
in his heart, SO let him give; not grudgingly, or of neces- 
sity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Cor. 9:1-7.) 
It's enough to "pester to death" anyone that will steel his 
heart against an appeal like that, and try to berate and 
besmear, and blight and blast and blot the work of gen- 
erations, and become confederate with the Hardshells in 
their war on Foreign Missions. But in spite of the oppo- 
sition already developing, the Apostle is still unrelenting 
in his cry for MONEY. He knew the corrupting influence 
of the golden dust, and he warns Christians against its 
mighty power : 

"For the love of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL, 
which while some coveted after, they have erred from the 
faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 
(1 Tim. 6:10.) One must lose his manhood and become 
an Idolater before he can LOVE money. The Apostle 
says that covetousness IS idolatry. (Col. 3:5.) One may 
be fond of money, but before he can LOVE money he must 
so far degenerate and pass out of the human sphere, and 
below the animal sphere, that he reaches the sphere of the 
mineral kingdom, where he can set his affection on the 



112 Grapeshot and Canister 

gods of "gold and silver, graven with art and man's de- 
vice/' and so far lose the genius of a real man that he 
becomes an idolater. He can then be any thing that gold 
would be, and do any thing that gold would do. Our Lord 
wants us to make money our servant, and not become its 
slave. It's an awful thing to be an idolater, hence Paul 
kept up "an everlasting howl about money," which Brother 
Watson says "pesters our Landmark brethren nearly to 
death." Covetousness is one of the worst of sins. It's the 
most universal sin. It's the most universally unconfessed 
sin. The Lord required the people to KILL Achan for his 
covetousness (Josh. 7 : ) ; thence for one thousand years 
the priests, and kings, and Prophets "kept up an ever- 
lasting howl about money ;" with "line upon line and pre- 
cept upon precept" the Lord tried to burn into their hearts 
the right use of money, and keep them from the idolatrous 
worship of the money-god. But in spite of all this teach- 
ing and training, and painstaking oversight, Israel bank- 
rupted herself through covetousness; and as the curtain 
fell in the days of Malachi, Jehovah exclaimed in Prophetic 
voice : "Will a man rob God, yet ye have robbed Me, this 
whole nation." (Mai. 3 : .) For four hundred years 
God's voice was hushed into silence and Israel was left 
alone, the victim of "covetousness which is idolatry." 
(Col. 3 :5.) With the institution and growth of the Church 
appeared again the death-dealing influence of covetousness. 
Covetousness made Judas Iscariot object to Mary's expense 
account, although it cost him not a cent. (John 12:1-6.) 
The indignation that declared her benevolent act a "waste" 
of money was engendered in the disciples by the love of 
money. They said : "Why was this waste of the ointment 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 113 

made?" but Jesus said, "Let her alone; why trouble ye 
her? she hath done what she could." (Mark 14:1-10.) 
For her unselfish sacrifice, Jesus declared she should have 
honorable mentiou "throughout the whole world wherever 
His Gospel should be preached/' What a comment on those 
cynical Christians of the present day who put the dollar 
mark on a living soul. So atrocious was the crime of 
covetousness that, when Ananias and Sapphira sought to 
practice deception on the public mind by withholding a 
part of the price of their lands, the Lord would not com- 
mit their destruction to the hands of man, as He did in the 
case of Achan, but He showed His disapprobation of this 
awful sin by slaying them outright Himself before the 
public Treasury, and refusing to inform their family or 
invite them to the burying. One should think that such a 
funeral would forever put an end to covetousness in the 
church; but not so. Paul found it necessary to keep up 
"an everlasting howl about the use of money/' and to warn 
the churches against its corroding influences: "Charge 
them that are rich in this world," said he, "that they be 
not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the 
living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy. That 
they DO GOOD, that they be rich in GOOD WORKS, 
ready to distribute, willing to communicate." (1 Tim. 
6 :17-18.) Is not sending out missionaries, preachers and 
doctors like Paul and Luke, women like Phebe (Col. 4:14; 
and Eom. 16:1), blacksmiths, carpenters, farmers, or one 
of any reputable calling, who can more readily come into 
touch with the home life of a lost people, a GOOD WORK? 
Is not building church houses, and schools, and colleges, 
and seminaries, and hospitals, and Bible houses, and print- 



114 Qrapeshot and Canister 

ing houses, a GOOD work? It's so considered in this 
country, why should it be thought an evil work in the lands 
where they need them most to carry on the work of the 
Lord? If God puts it into the hearts of his people to do 
a work like that, who are those brethren who have spent 
the best of their days in just such work, that they should 
pronounce such an enterprise a "waste" of money, a cheat 
and a fraud? Jesus says: "Let them alone, they have 
wrought a good work." But we are not through, Brother 
Watson. 

6. Says Mr. Watson: "Something of the feeling of 
romance and novelty tempts men into Foreign Missions." 
(Exposure, p. 42.) Is language like that likely to encour- 
age Foreign Missions, or to convince men that its author 
is an ardent friend to Foreign Missions of any kind ? Such 
language is found not infrequently in their missionary lit- 
erature. Ben M. Bogard, Editor, Arkansas Baptist, under 
the title of MISSIONARY DELUSIONS, says: 

"The romantic feature of Foreign Mission work 
causes many young people to imagine they want to be mis- 
sionaries. The trip across the ocean, the strange customs 
of foreign people, the heroic adventure, the thought of 
having their praises sung from a thousand pulpits, and 
their names published widely in the newspapers, brings on 
a MENTAL DELUSION (Bogard ought to know, he says 
he tried it. — Ed.) which makes the young hopeful think 
he is the very stuff first-class missionaries are made of. 
We have had some experience along this line. We once 
thought we ought to go as a missionary to Africa. We 
had read of Livingston, and Stanley, and Captain Baker. 
We had read of elephants, boaconstrictors, big red ants, 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 115 

the Great Desert, eocoanuts, apes, tropical fruits, perpetual 
summer, and incidentally that some NASTY, degraded 
negroes lived there who might be won to Christ. With this 
MIXTURE in mind we even went so far as to make a 
DATE with a committee of the Richmond Foreign Mission 
Board, at Nashville, Tenn., when the Southern Baptist 
Convention met there twenty years ago. (This was just 
one year before the Gospel Mission movement began to 
crop out under Crawford et al., in China. Keep this in 
mind. — Ed.) But we never met the committee and right 
glad we are of it (the committee could no doubt recipro- 
cate the compliment, if they have kept up with Bogard's 
career. — Ed.), for if we HAD it is probable that the pres- 
ent Editor of the Arkansas Baptist would have been BUY- 
ING NEGBO GIRLS in the Congo country and palming 
them off as converts to Christ." (Ark. Baptist, March 30, 
1910.) 

Is there any evidence in this quotation from the Editor 
of the Arkansas Baptist, in A. D. 1910, that is calculated 
to lead the reader to believe that the author of such lan- 
guage concerning the most unfortunate of Adam's race, 
who confesses with hilarity and shameless ridicule that he 
was moved to practice deception on the Foreign Mission 
Board : is there any evidence in the foregoing language 
that would indicate that he has ever been, is now, or ever 
shall be, sincerely in favor of any mission work whatever 
on the Foreign Field, or anywhere else among the colored 
race? We recognize the degraded condition of the negro 
race, and their subordinate position in society, but had 
never thought of ridiculing or insulting them, and trying 
to increase their already intolerable and complex burdens, 



116 Grapeshot and Canister 

as the best means of inducing Landmark Baptists to fall 
out with the work of the Foreign Mission Board and the 
Southern Baptist Convention. Read again Tom Watson's 
own words, compare them carefully with Bogard's just 
given, and we believe that you will agree with us that, for 
irreverence about holy things, for disrespect and flippancy 
in religious matters, for buffoonery and the demagogue's 
appeal to prejudice, for lowflung insinuations and "super- 
fluity of naughtiness," and for toploftical tomfoolery, these 
disgruntled Landmark Leaders take the cake. If Bogard's 
words, just given, mean what they spell, the past twenty 
years have utterly failed to erase that "Mental Delusion." 
But we are not through with Brother Watson. 

7. Mr. Watson has taken such a dose of socialism and 
populism, and other Isms, that he has just about become a 
straight skeptic. Bead again what he says. He takes the 
position fair and square that the religion of Pagan nations 
will make as good Christians as the Christian religion — 
"just as good as we are." "That a heathen who lives ac- 
cording to the best light he has will be saved. Is it not the 
general BELIEF, in this AGE of INTELLECTUAL 
FREEDOM, that a Mohammedan, a Buddhist, or a dis- 
ciple of Confucius, who HONESTLY believes in the re- 
ligion of his Fathers and does his utmost to live accord- 
ing to its teachings, WILL NOT BE DAMNED TO 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT?" 

"The Creeds of these people, when faithfully observed, 
MAKE GOOD MEN; and will the Father of us ALL send 
GOOD PEOPLE to broil in an eternal hell ?" How is that 
for Landmarkism ? And Bogard, and Webb, and Matheny 
indorse him. Bogard says: "Thank God for Tom Wat- 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 117 

son." (Ark. Baptist, 3-30-1910.) Webb says: "Let every 
lover of TRUTH pray God to give Tom Watson a glorious 
victory for the TRUTH." (Ark. Bap., 1-5-1910.) Math- 
eny says : "There are thousands on thousands who are sat- 
isfied that Mr. Watson is telling the truth. Oh for a 
THOUSAND Watsons" (Ark. Bap., 2-2-1910). All these 
are Editors of the Arkansas Baptist, the mouthpiece for 
these modern Landmarkers. Talk about HERESY, HOT- 
BEDS OF HERESY, Chicago University can't hold Tom 
Watson a light; yet these Landmark Leaders indorse him, 
and advertise his journals in their State paper. But don't 
blame Tom Watson. Being more capable and intellectual 
than the others who have been leading the Landmark de- 
flection, he has grasped the genius of this whole Gospel 
Mission movement. The less observant reader may now 
understand why the Landmarkers are so much opposed to 
Foreign Missions, and have been fighting it under the mask 
of Mission Methods: Like their new, and most capable 
leader, Tom Watson, who has "come to the kingdom for 
such a time as this," they teach that the Heathen Religions 
are as good for Heathen countries as the Christian religion 
is for our country; and Watson says: "Let us have no 
NARROW-MINDED foolishness about this : ask any hon- 
est scholar and he will tell you that these Eastern peo- 
ples had a beautiful, refining code of morality long before 
Christians met in Convention to VOTE the adoption of 
THESE separate writings which constitute OUR Bible." 
"For hundreds of years Cuba and Mexico have been Chris- 
tian, JUST as EUROPE is Christian, and JUST as Ar- 
menia is Christian. It is certainly a phenomenal state of 
affairs, when the Churches of THIS country are asked to 



118 Grapeshot and Canister 

put up the CASH for missionary work among peoples who 
have been Christianized for AGES." Such is Gospel Mis- 
sions, modern Landmarkism. Should we wonder that 
Bogard and other exponents of this nebulous system, who 
are trying to mobilize so many conflicting elements under 
the general note of opposition to Conventions, should have 
been laboring under "Mental and Mission Delusions" for 
twenty years? Watson has given us the real genius, the 
quintessence, the theological EXTEACT of Landmarkism, 
which being interpreted simply means: An organization 
of discordant nonaffinities which fight each other every 
time they meet in their General Associations, but finally 
agree to stand together in their opposition to Conventions 
and Convention work; it's just Hardshellism gone to seed. 
In proof, take what the Hardshells say, make the compari- 
son for yourself and be convinced. 

HARDSHELL TESTIMONY. 

The Hardshell opposition to Boards and Conventions and 
outside societies was projected and promoted by the same 
mode of attack, only, be it said to their credit, with more 
consistency. 

JOHN TAYLOR 

Wrote his pamphlet, THOUGHTS, etc., Oct. 27, 1819 
The familiar charges of "greed and the love of money and 
ease, place and power," etc., is patent in all their literature. 
Note their similarity with modern Landmark indictments. 
Notice also that they begin their fight on mission METH- 
ODS, but end the fight a few years later by an uncon- 
cealed opposition to Missions. Just so with the Land- 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 119 

markers : They started their fight on METHODS, under 
Bo-gard and others, but have ended it in outspoken oppo- 
sition to any kind of Foreign MISSIONS as a "romantic 
mental DELUSION/' under Thos. E. Watson, and Ben 
M. Bogard. But hear Mr. Taylor: 

"The deadly evil I have in view is under the epithets 
or appellations of Missionary Boards, Conventions, Soci- 
eties, and Theological Schools, ALL bearing the appear- 
ance of great though affected sanctity, as the mystery of 
iniquity did in the days of Paul, when the man of sin was 
in embryo." (Thoughts, etc. Genesis of Antimissionism, 
Carroll, p. 97.) Doesn't that sound natural? But he 
continues: "'The missionaries have many hooks by which 
they rake the world for money. Giving much money being 
the best evidence that a man is a Christian-Heaven is al- 
most secured to them ; as also an honorary seat in any of 
their councils on paying one hundred dollars. . . . 
Money and power were the signs of the times when the 
mystery of iniquity began to work in the days of Paul. 
The same principle is plainly seen in the great Board of 
Missions in America, and Rice, their chief cook, as also in 
their great Conventions. Money and power are the two 
principal members of the old beast. That both these limbs 
are found in this young least is obvious, and exemplified 
in the great solicitude of CORRESPONDENCE with all 
the Baptist Associations. Power is acquired by connection 
with a hundred Associations, a fine nest-egg of gold to 
answer their future ambition." (Idem., pp. 103-5.) 

"I consider these great men are verging close on an 
ARISTOCRACY," continues Mr. Taylor, "with an object 
to sap the foundation of Baptist republican government " 



120 Grapeshot and Canister 

(Idem, p. 106.) He further says: "Why this mighty 
solicitude in these men to constitute churches? The MO- 
TIVE is obvious. In the first place there will be fine tales 
to write the great BOARD; (just what Bogard and Watson 
say. — Ed.) and secondly, every church thus set up by them- 
selves will be under their own immediate control." (Idem, 
p. 106.) Another writer says: "The Convention Board 
system is today the most dangerous enemy to Baptist prin- 
ciples on earth, because it is an enemy inside. It is Epis- 
copacy in Baptist clothes; it has gained the confidence of 
Baptist ministers and churches; it has ridden into popu- 
larity on the Back of missions; it has established a prac- 
tical Episcopacy in Baptist mission fields; it has secured 
control of the mission treasury, and now after a hundred 
years, it is making a secret (how could it be secret when 
Scarboro knows all about it? — Ed.) and well planned at- 
tack on the independence of the churches," etc. (J. A. 
Scarboro, B. B. B., p. 269, one of the Leaders among the 
Landmarkers). Reader, which of these two authors is the 
best Hardshell? But we introduce another Hardshell, 
namely, 

DANIEL PARKER, 

who wrote about 1820, and, like our Landmark brethren, 
tried to conceal his opposition to missions by his war on 
mission METHODS ; but finally, like our Landmark breth- 
ren, came out boldly against MISSIONS, Bible Societies, 
and Schools for the heathen. He writes at some length de- 
fending himself against the accusation that he was opposed 
to these things. He says: 

"(1) That we are opposed to the spread of the gospel 
among the heathen. To this I answer, we are pleased with 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 121 

the spread and growth of ImmanueFs kingdom throughout 
the world. But we wish it under his direction and govern- 
ment, and crown him with glory which we believe is not 
the case in the Mission PLAN. 

"(2) We are charged with opposing the translation of 
the Scriptures and the education of the heathen. To this 
I answer the charge is incorrect, for we oppose neither; 
but will help it with heart and hand if it could be taken 
in a PEOPEE MANNER, and take the evils from it. 

"(3) We are charged with holding a tyrannical principle, 
inasmuch as we are not reconciled to our brethren in their 
giving THEIR money to the MISSION SYSTEM, and 
the argument is that they have a right to do what they 
please with their own, etc. To this I answer : If the mis- 
sion SYSTEM be an evil, and God has never required it at 
your hands to give the blessings he has bestowed on you to 
support an UNSCRIPTURAL PLAN, THAT is repug- 
nant to his gospel government," etc. (Carroll, p. 110.) 

"We stand opposed to the mission PLAN/' continues 
Parker, "in every point and part where it interferes with 
or is CONNECTED with the ministry, either in depend- 
ing on the church to give them a call, or Seminaries of 
learning to qualify them to preach, or an established FUND 
for the preacher to look back upon as a support, and when 
the Board assumes authority to appoint the fields of their 
labor, we believe they SIN in attempting a work that alone 
belongs to the Divine Being. The object of the missionary 
societies in respect to the minstry we are opposed to in 
EVERY POINT." (Idem. pp. 111-112.) That sounds 
just like an article from the Arkansas Baptist, and much 
of the Landmark literature. Bogard says: 



122 Grapeshot and Canister 

"Opposition to unscriptural METHODS is not opposi- 
tion to MISSIONS itself/' (Ark. Bap., 4-20-1910.) Again 
Bogard says : "We do not believe there ought to be any de- 
nominational schools. Let the individual and the State 
'educate, and let the Churches evangelize." (Landmark 
Baptist, 4-20-1904.) W. M. Webb, another Editor says: 
"Of course, everyone knows that Jesus never commissioned 
His churches to build SCHOOLS," etc. (Ark. Bap., 5-11- 
1910.) J. A. Scarboro says: "The education fad is a 
great talisman to conjure Baptist pocket books. The col- 
leges and Seminaries are the hotbeds of heresy." (B. B. B., 
p. 414.) J. H. Milburn, on this point, says: "Of all the 
blighting and withering curses with which the Baptist cause 
has ever been cursed Theological Seminaries have been and 
are the WORST." (Mission Methods, p. 221.) Again 
MILBURN says: "Notably among presumptious SINS 
can be safely classed infant baptism, sprinkling and pour- 
ing for baptism, Prelatical, Diocesan and Archbishops and 
Corresponding Secretaries who, together with Boards, man- 
ipulate and manage ministers, fixing their salaries, assign- 
ing them their fields of labor/' etc. (M. Methods, p. 65.) 
If Daniel Parker is a Hardshell, all these other authors are ; 
they are just alike — the same nationality, the same tribe, 
the same vernacular. Again Parker says: 

"We have to acknowledge that the gospel has been con- 
ducted, directed and supported for nearly eighteen hundred 
years without such a plan as the Board has prescribed." 
(Idem, p. 118.) On this point hear the Landmarkers. J. 
A. Scarboro: "Churches did work for seventeen hundred 
years without BOARDS, and that, too, in the dark ages, 
and it may be that churches NOW could and would work 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 123 

WITHOUT boards." (B. B. B., p. 11.) J. H. Milburn: 

"Baptist churches got along for seventeen hundred years 
WITHOUT choosing any OTHER organization through 
which to evangelize the world, than the churches of Christ." 
(M. Methods, p. 282.) Which class is the best Hardshell? 

Take another comparison. Parker says: "The mission 
society applies under the character of religion to the ene- 
mies of Christ for help, and therefore casts contempt on 
his dignity. Members of these societies obtain their seats 
and authority here by PAYING their mone}'," etc. (Idem, 
p. 121.) 

J. H. Milburn says : "All the organizations contributing 
funds to the Southern Baptist Convention, and all those 
who contribute money to the State organizations, co-oper- 
ating with the Southern Baptist Convention in mission 
work, are engaged in the OBNOXIOUS work of buying 
and selling votes." (M. Methods, p. 126.) If one of these 
is a Hardshell, both of them are. They are twins on the 
mission question. Take another, Parker: "The mission 
spirit does not appear from MY view like the Spirit of 
Christ. I verily believe it is one of the flood-gates of hell." 
(Idem, p. 121.) J. A. Scarboro: "The Convention Board 
System is today the most DANGEROUS enemy to Baptist 
principles on earth. It is a peril such as Baptists never 
faced before." (B. B. B., p. 269.) Tell us, ye conser- 
vators of Baptist orthodoxy, which of these men is the 
Landmarker, and which the Hardshell. Are they not of 
the "same kith and kin" ? As late as 1843, Daniel Parker, 
one of the founders of the Hardshell church, wrote as 
follows : 

"Now which is of God? The present 'mission effort 



124 Grapeshot and Canister 

spirit/ reduced to a system unknown to the Bible, as per- 
taining to the gospel, without CHURCH AUTHORITY, 
or US, ANTI to that course of things, who are contending 
for scriptural ground, CHURCH AUTHORITY, and gos- 
pel order, in sending or spreading the gospel." (Benedict, 
His. Bap., p. 788.) Hear again J. H. Milburn: "Well did 
Christ say : 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath 
not planted, shall be rooted up/ Matt. 15 :13. God has 
neither planted Conventionism nor will anything of the 
kind abide the test incident upon the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. The WHOLE TRIBE of human inventions 
undertaking the evangelization of the world and yet not 
subject to CHURCH AUTHORITIES and control are so 
many tares among the wheat." (M. Methods, p. 87.) Both 
the Hardshells and Landmarkers alike sought to conceal 
their opposition to missions under the plea of church au- 
thority. But according to J. H. Milburn, the Landmark 
Associations will ALL be destroyed with "the whole tribe 
of human inventions." The arguments stand thus : 

1. "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath NOT 
planted shall be rooted up." 

2. But our heavenly Father did not plant the Landmark 
Association; Bogard and Milburn et al, planted that in 
April, 1902; 

3. Therefore, the Landmark Association shall be rooted 
up, J. H. Milburn being witness. 

Farewell, Brother Landmarkers, we hope for you a cool 
journey. 

Gibert Beebe, Editor Signs of The Times, established 
1832 for the Hardshells when they separated from the Reg- 
ular Missionary Baptists, said in 1839: 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 125 

"The New School Baptists, with all their new inventions, 
sorceries, witchcrafts, proselytes, merchandise, doctrines 
and moneyed institutions, will go DOWN with old Babylon, 
like the millstone, and rise no more forever." (Editorials, 
Vol. I., p. 481.) 

But we must content ourself with only one or two or 
more comparisons: In their address at Black Rock, Md., 
Sept. 28, 1832, when the Hardshells separated from the 
Missionaries, they object to Conventions and Mission Soci- 
eties because of their "Authority to appoint females and 
school masters, and printers, and farmers, as such, to be 
solemnly set apart by prayer, and the imposition of hands, 
as missionaries of the cross, and to be supported from these 
funds/' (Feast of Fat Things, p. 16.) Doesn't that sound 
natural? Now hear a Landmarker, W. M. Webb: "Of 
course, everyone knows that Jesus never commissioned his 
churches to build schools, pay school teachers to teach the 
heathen grammar, arithmetic, carpenter work, farming, 
blacksmithing , and pay board for the pupils out of the 
Mission Fund." (Ark. Bap., 5-11-1910.) 

These Landmarkers think they have made a brand new 
discovery; but they are just using the very arguments the 
Hardshells used 78 years ago. Pretty bad, when the Land- 
markers have to steal a Hardshell tug-boat to attack the 
army of Israel in. Brother Webb is just 78 years behind 
the times. Take one more parallel. From the same Hard- 
shell address, p. 20, we read : 

"As to Theological Schools, we shall at present content 
ourselves with saying that they are a BEFLECTION upon 
the faithfulness of the Holy Ghost, who is engaged accord- 
ing to the promise of the great Head of the Church to lead 



126 Grapeshot and Canister 

the disciples into all truth. See Jno. 16:13. Also, that in 
every age, from the school at Alexandria down to this day 
they have been a real PEST to the church of Christ" J. 
A. Scarboro: "The education fad is a great talisman to 
conjure Baptist pocketbooks. God established a theologi- 
cal school in his churches ; the Holy Spirit is the Teacher 
and the Bible is the Text Book. The colleges and semi- 
naries are the hotbeds of heresy." (B. B. B., p. 414.) 
Tom Watson : "It's a sin and a shame — a burning wrong 
and disgrace — that we should be forcing these missionary 
schools upon the alleged, heathen when we need them so 
badly for millions of our own boys and girls." (Foreign 
Missions Exposed, p. 94.) You are 78 years behind time, 
Brother Watson. The Hardshells, who do not claim any 
education, used identically the same argument to arouse 
the prejudices of the unlearned 78 years ago. Moreover, 
these Hardshells claim that THEY were the first in mod- 
ern times to draw the sword against these missionary soci- 
eties and Theological schools. On this point Daniel Par- 
ker says: "It is evident that great talents have been en- 
gaged and much time and money spent to vindicate the 
mission PLAN, and as yet but little said or done against 
it." (In 1820, according to Daniel Parker, opposition to 
Mission societies was a brand new thing. — Ed.) "It makes 
me shudder," he continues, "when I think I am the FIRST 
one, that I have any knowledge of, among the thousands of 
zealous religions of America that have ventured to draw the 
sword against the error, or to shoot at it and spare no ar- 
rows ; and more particularly when I know that I lack that 
qualification that is pleasing to the Spirit of the world, for 
I have no education but to read, and have no knowledge of 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 127 

the English grammar only as my Bible has taught me; 
but all the apology I shall make for my grammatical errors 
are, that God has chosen the foolish things of this world 
to confound the wise — therefore I will venture." (Gen. 
Anti., Carroll, p. 108.) The Hardshells adopted the same 
mode of attack on mission plans in 1832 that the Land- 
markers do today. In their address, p. 14, they say: 

"We cannot fellowship the plans for spreading the gos- 
pel, generally adopted at this day, under the name of Mis- 
sions ; because we consider those PLANS THROUGHOUT 
a subversion of the order marked out in the New Testa- 
ment. The Lord has manifestly established the order, that 
his ministers should be sent forth BY THE CHURCHES. 
But the Mission plan is to send them out by a Mission 
Society." This was 78 years ago. On this point Ben M. 
Bogard says : "The only organized effort recognized in the 
New Testament for the work of missions is the local con- 
gregations of baptized believers. Any other organization 
that may undertake the work is a usurper, a lawbreaker, no 
matter how good the intention of such organization may 
be." (Bap. Way-Book, p. 24.) This was two years ago. 
It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to tell the difference 
between this Landmarker and that Hardshell. 

We are to "hold fast the FORM of sound words," and 
we are to "keep the ordinances as they have been delivered 
unto us" (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Cor. 11:2), because obedience 
to these lies in obedience to their FORM. But nowhere 
are we commanded, and there is not a hint anywhere that 
we are expected to "hold fast the form of plans" or "do the 
missionary work just as the New Testament churches did." 
The Apostles themselves did not have a uniform way of 



128 Grapeshot and Canister 

doing mission work among themselves. Hence much of 
Paul's instruction on Missions is given as ADVICE, and 
not by commandment. (See 2 Cor. 8: and 9:.) 

We are commanded to GO, bit no specific command is 
given as to the means to be used. Not so with the Ordi- 
nances and the Doctnnes. Boards and Committees, Con- 
ventions and Associations, Societies, etc., are in the order 
of MEANS, and not in the order of commandments. Any 
means which does not contravene some expressed command 
of Christ, may be used in the propagation of the truth 
among men. This is the only sound principle of interpre- 
tation for our marching orders as found in Matt. 28 : and 
Mark 16:. If the example of the Apostles is to be fol- 
lowed strictly in the order of means, then we must throw 
away the printed page, the Apostles had none; they wrote 
every page with goose quills. We must dispense with pub- 
lication societies; the Apostles had none. We must ignore 
every modern means of rapid transportation — steamships, 
railroads, electric cars, EVERYTHING; the Apostles had 
nothing of the kind. 

We must do away with modern schools, either public or 
denominational, for the Apostles had nothing of the kind. 
We must dispense with every kind of Sunday School Lit- 
erature, either Landmark or Convention Series, for the 
Apostles had nothing of the kind. The Hardshells insisted 
that we use NO MEANS in the propagation of the gospel 
that the Apostles did not use. The Landmarkeps make the 
same plea. Such nonsense ditched the Hardshells as it 
must ultimately do their Landmark or Gospel Mission 
Descendants. Gilbert Beebe, the HardshelFs oldest and 
ablest Editor, said in 1839 : 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 129 

"We differ from the new order in regard to the formation 
of Missionary Societies, because they are unauthorized in 
the Scriptures." (Signs of The Times, Editorials, Vol. I., 
p. 547.) In 1840, he said: "As fine feathers make fine 
birds, the Baptists have changed their plumage, and now 
appear among the peacocks of the age. Now the Baptists 
have their Doctors of Divinity, their Colleges, their Na- 
tional and State Conventions ; their churches occupy stately 
mansions with sounding bells and towering domes/' (Idem, 
Vol. I., 590.) Of course, they had no sounding bells nor 
towering domes. Why should our Landmark brethren 
have these things? Again, in 1840, he said: "The Old 
School Baptists, as a body, disclaim all connection with, 
and fellowship FOE religious societies of every name, ob- 
ject and pretense, excepting the church of God/' (Vol. L, 
637.) Doesn't that sound Landmarky? Eead again Bo- 
gard, Milburn, Scarboro, and Webb. In 1841 Beebe said : 
"The Predestinarian Baptists are the only people on the 
earth that love the gospel of Christ, and these are the only 
people under heaven that will publish the gospel from a 
sincere love of it." (Vol. I., 651.) That sounds exactly 
like the Landmarkers. 

Again : "We cannot, without doing violence to the Word, 
suppose that the churches are to make lords of their minis- 
tering servants; to rob themselves and families of the com- 
forts of life, in order to pamper and enrich their preachers, 
to make merchandise of them, or of the gospel." (Edi- 
torials, Vol. I., 673.) On page 675 Beebe says: "We do 
not believe in preaching by the day, by the month, or by 
virtue of any CONTRACT between the preacher and his 
people." (Read Luke 10:7; and 2 Cor. 11:8.) But like 



130 Orapeshot and Canister 

the Landmarkers, the Hardshells become more intolerant 
as the years go by. Like the wasp, they are largest when 
hatched and sting worse with age. In 1842, Beebe said: 
"In the long dark catalogue, Bible, Missionary, Tract, Re- 
ligions Education, Abolition and Temperance Societies, In- 
fant, Sunday and Theological Schools, Protracted Meet- 
ings, Monthly Concerts, National and State Conventions, 
as organized bodies, occupy very prominent places; and as 
none of them can bear the light and scrutiny of the Scrip- 
tures, and none of them can prove themselves of heavenly 
birth, we consider them ALL the brood of their Armenian 
mother, whose house is the way to HELL, leading down to 
the chambers of death/' (Vol. I., p. 748-9.) But age 
does not abate this intolerant spirit. In 1843, Editor 
Beebe, of the work of the Michigan Baptist State Conven- 
tion, made use of the following complimentary (?) re- 
marks: "Base slander. It's the whore of Bab}don, whose 
name is in her forehead, "Mystery; Babylon the Great, 
the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the Earth," 
and Michigan and ALL her sister States are even now 
drunk with the wine of her filthy cup. . . . The New 
School Baptists do oppose the government of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, preach false doctrine in His name, deny the 
faith of God's elect, prostituting the ordinances of the gos- 
pel, believe that gain is godliness, etc. . . . Are your 
hearts made of granite, that you should withhold your 
money when these panting, burning, agonizing, longing, 
brainless, lazy, greedy, pining youngsters feel as though 
they cannot do without it? ... To require it, as the 
Convention does, is adding to the words of the Book of 
God, and to demand it in the name of Christ, without his 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 131 

order, is FORGERY." (Editorials, Vol. II., pp. 406-7, 8.) 
Volumes could be filled with such vituperation from the lit- 
erature of these malcontents among the Hardshells and 
modern Landmarkers. 

This same spirit is rife in the Hardshell literature of 
1910. "I have my first missionary to see who is conscien- 
tiously working for the good of the natives, and I have seen 
about 35 of them." (Arthur C. Schenck, Primitive Bap- 
tist, quoted approvingly in Baptist Trumpet, Oct. 6, 1910. 
Both Hardshell papers.) "The practice of laboring in one 
field and drawing your support from another is foreign to 
the teaching of God's Word." (R. H. P., in Primitive 
Baptist, quoted in Baptist Trumpet, Nov. 24, 1910.) 

Let the reader recall the charges of "fraud, padded re' 
ports, heresy/' etc. extant in the Landmark literature of 
the present day, and he will agree with us that they are the 
lineal descendants of these Hardshells, both in spirit and in 
practice. 

THE CAMPBELLITES, ALSO, 

Had their part in the Hardshell rupture of 1832. They 
were a heterogenous organization, consisting, like the Land- 
markers, of many conflicting faiths, but rallying around 
ONE NOTE of opposition to Conventions, Societies, etc. 
No doubt Alexander Campbell did more than either Taylor 
or Parker to make the Hardshell division complete. Being 
much more intellectual, and a born leader, he brought his 
learning and wit and ridicule into requisition, and played 
upon the ignorance and prejudice of the hoi populoi with 
marvelous success. Like the Hardshells and Landmarkers, 
the Campbellites are a denomination of critics, malcon- 



132 Grapeshot and Canister 

tents — a bundle of negations, an organization of agitators. 
The Gospel Missioners or modern Landmarkers have adopt- 
ed the same policy. In 1823 Campbell began his irate op- 
position to Conventions and other societies, and many of 
his followers adhere to his positions to this day, although 
he died president of a Publication society. In his earliest 
writings Campbell stood just where our Landmark breth- 
ren stand today on the mission question. For the informa- 
tion and delectation of our readers we give a few extracts 
from his own pen; note the striking similarity between A. 
Campbell, and Bogard, Milburn & Co. Campbell says: 

"The societies called churches, constituted and set in 
order by those ministers of the New Testament, were not 
fractured into missionary societies, Bible societies, educa- 
tion societies; nor did they dream of organizing such in 
the world. The head of a believing household was not in 
those days a president or Manager of a Board of Foreign 
Missions; his wife the president of some female education 
society; his eldest son, the recording secretary of some do- 
mestic Bible society; his eldest daughter, the Correspond- 
ing secretary of a mite society; his servant maid, the vice 
president of a rag society ; and his little daughter, a tutoress 
of a Sunday school. They knew nothing of the hobbies of 
modern times. In their Church Capacity ALONE they 
moved. They neither transformed themselves into any 
other kind of Association, nor did they fracture and sever 
themselves into divers societies. They viewed the church of 
Jesus Christ, as the scheme of heaven to ameliorate the 
world ; as members of it, they considered themselves bound 
to do all they could for the glory of God and the good of 
men. They dare not transfer to a Missionary society, or 



Headed Toward HardshelFism 133 

Education society, a CENT or a PRAYER, lest in so doing 
they would rob the church of its glory, and exalt the in- 
ventions of men above the wisdom of God. In their 
Church Capacity Alone They Moved." (Christian Baptist, 
pp. 6-7.) 

Again, Campbell ridicules the use of modern utilities in 
the following language: "Our devotion exhibits itself in 
Prayers, in the set phrase of pompous oratory; in singing 
choirs, etc.; in revivals, camp-meetings, praying societies 
(no wonder the C-ites have such opposition to praying for 
sinners: it was born in them. — Ed.), theological schools, 
education societies, missionary societies, Sunday schools, 
and in raising large sums of money by every way that in- 
genuity can devise, for propagating the gospel." (Idem, p. 
7.) Doesn't that sound SO much like some speech before a 
Landmark association ? Again Campbell says : "The mis- 
sionary work was done. The gospel had been preached to 
all nations before the end of the apostolic age. The Bible, 
then, gives us no idea of a Missionary without the power of 
working miracles. Is then the attempt to convert the 
heathen by means of modern Missionaries, an unauthorized 
and hopeless one ? It seems to be unauthorized, and, if so, 
then it is a hopeless one." (Idem, p. 15.) What familiar 
language, that. But again: "With regard to Bible Soci- 
eties, they are the most specious and plausible of all the 
institutions of this age. No man who loves the Bible can 
refrain from rejoicing at its increasing circulation. But 
ever} 7 Christian who understands the nature and design, 
the excellence and glory of the institution called the Church 
of Jesus Christ, will lament to see its glory transferred to 
a human corporation. The church is robbed of its charac- 



134 Grapeshot and Canister 

ter by every institution, merely human, that would ape its 
excellence and substitute itself in its place. The honor and 
glory of the Church require that in its OWN CHARAC- 
TER (that is, without a Bible society, of course. — Ed.) it 
present and disseminate, in their purity the Oracles of 
God. Let every Church of Christ, then, if it can only dis- 
seminate twenty Bibles or twenty Testaments in one year, 
do this much. Then it will know into what channel its 
bounty flows (same appeal to suspicion and distrust among 
the Landmark brethren. — Ed.) it will need no recording- 
secretary, no president, no managers of its bounty." 
(Idem, pp. 33-34.) 

Like Bogard and Webb and Milburn and Watson and 
Scarboro, Campbell protested that he was not opposing 
Missions, but the METHODS employed; but, as in their 
case, his own words prove him to be really against Mis- 
sions. Like them, also, Campbell appeals to the great sums 
of money spent to arouse prejudice: Hear him: "As to 
missionary PLANS, I am constrained to differ from many 
whom I love and esteem. Look at the sums of money 
squandered at home and abroad under the pretext of con- 
verting the world ; and again, wherein is the heathen world 
benefited by such conversion? (Just like Watson and 
Bogard. — Ed.) Is the hand of the Lord in this business? 
Does he work in it as in the days of yore? Look at our 
own country — our Indian neighbors and our African bond- 
men. Are not these, equally as the Japanese or the Bur- 
mans objects worthy of our sympathy and regard? I do 
not oppose, INTELLECTUALLY at least (neither do the 
Landmarkers oppose missions intellectually, but they do in 
argument and practice. — Ed.) the Scriptural PLAN of 



Headed Toward Hardshellism 135 

converting the world. My opponents do represent me as 
opposing L he means of converting the world, not wishing 
to discriminate, in my case at least, between a person's op- 
posing the ABUSES of a good cause, and the cause itself. 
(The very plea Bogard makes. — Ed.) I did contribute 
my mite and my efforts to the popular missionary cause, 
until my conscience forbade me from an acquaintance with 
the abuses of the principle." (Idem, pp. 71-72.) The 
Leaders among the Gospel Missioners make the same claim 
for their opposition to the present missionary policies. And, 
like Campbell, their conscience did not forbid them to work 
with the Conventions until, for some reason, they had lost 
out with the Convention. (See Addenda.) Following this 
principle, Campbell, like the Landmarkers, finally drifted 
into downright opposition to Associations and all kinds of 
organizations except the local church. (See Milburn, Scar- 
boro, Webb, and Matheny, quoted elsewhere in this book.) 
On this point Campbell says: 

"Whether such an alliance of the Priests and the nobles 
of the Kirk be called a Session, a Presbytery, a Synod, a 
general Assembly, a Convention, a Conference, an Asso- 
ciation, or Annual meeting, its tendency and result are the 
same." (Idem, p. 73.) The Landmarkers can't beat that 
trying to arouse prejudice. Yet A. Campbell died Presi- 
dent of just such a society as he condemns. The only dif- 
ference between A. Campbell and the Landmarkers on this 
point is: Campbell started out wrong and got right, but 
the Landmarkers started out right and are going wrong. 
After quoting Campbell as opposing all kinds of societies, 
Joe S. Warlick, one of the leaders of the most arrogant 
wing of the Campbellite Church, has this to say: "I am 



136 Grapeshot and Canister 

sure that if Mr. Campbell were alive today, he would op- 
pose with all the vehemence of his soul, all the societies 
that are now sapping the life from the original stalk, the 
Church of Jesus Christ. The Missionary societies NOW 
are not what they were when Campbell was here, and he 
did not like what they had then, then, of course, he would 
condemn what we have now." (Joe S. Warlick, Editor, 
Gospel-Guide, Aug. 13, 1910.) The Hardshell-Baptists, 
the Landmark Baptists, and the Hardshell-Campbellites are 
a unit in their opposition to regular Missionary Baptists. 
So it appears that the Landmarkers, in their fight on mis- 
sion Methods, are just a cross between the Hardshells and 
Campbellites, 



CHAPTER V. 

Landmark Secession. 

We now undertake to show that modern Landmarkism, 
which began organic form in the year of our Lord, 1902, 
like Hardshellism, was a secession from the Regular Mis- 
sionary Baptists. They "discarded Conventions" anji 
Boards, and are thereby the exact counterpoise to the Hard- 
shell deflection, themselves being witnesses. A few Land- 
mark brethren who opposed Conventions and Boards, 
which, as Editor Bogard says were used by all Missionary 
Baptists until 1832, and which are used by Missionary 
Baptists at the present time, as every informed Baptist 
knows, met with Antioch Church, in the suburbs of Little 
Rock, Ark., April 10-11, 1902, and passed the following 
Resolution, in connection with their Statement of Princi- 
ples, namely: "Resolved, That we invite the brethren of 
the State Convention to so adjust matters and METHODS 
of mission work as to recognize the sovereignty of the 
churches and their rights to instruct their messengers, and 
in other ways to so MODIFY their methods of work that 
we can co-operate harmoniously in our denominational 
work." (Minutes, 1902, p. 5.) The Convention has always 
recognized this right of the Churches, as every Arkansas 
Baptist well knows. But the leaders in this Landmark de- 
fection had failed to control the Convention at Hope, in 

137 



138 Grapeshot and Canister 

1900, and at Paragould, in November, 1901, and so, like 
the Hardshells in 1832, they proposed to declare nonfel- 
lowship, and leave the Kegular Missionary Baptists. Dr. 
W. A. Clark, for years Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, of- 
fered the foregoing Eesolution, which was accepted by Ben 
M. Bogard, L. Quinn, J. GL Doyle, Committee on State- 
ment of Principles. This new organization of Landmark 
Baptists, and this assault on the Convention and its work 
came as a surprise to some who remembered that W. A. 
Clark, the Author of that Eesolution, had been a strong 
advocate of the Convention for years, and a member of the 
State Mission Board as late as October, 1901, and that Ben 
M. Bogard had declared in his book on Christian Union, 
only eight years before, that Boards and Conventions are 
Scriptural and all Baptists used them until 1832, and by 
his pen advocated the Arkansas Baptist State Convention 
as late as October, 1901. 

In the Arkansas Baptist, Oct. 9, 1901, Ben M. Bogard, 
now Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, under the caption, 
My Position on the Mission Question, had this to say: 
"Whereas, Some have been persistently misrepresenting me 
concerning this matter, I beg leave to state PLAINLY 
that I am heartily in favor, first, of the Churches; second, 
of the associations, and, third, of the Baptist State Con- 
vention. I want to preserve the Associations, the State 
Convention, and our State Mission Board. Whoever says I 
am opposed to the State Convention or its work misrepre- 
sents me." 

In the same issue of the Arkansas Baptist, Oct. 9, 1901, 
Dr. W. A. Clark, then Editor, delivered himself as fol- 
lows : "The Arkansas Baptist is in favor of organized 



Landmark Secession 139 

work and believes that churches have a right to meet in 
Association and Convention to advise about their work. 
Therefore, we favor associational Boards and our State 
Convention Board. Let no man say we are opposed to 
them. The Editor is NOW a member of the State Board. 
We advise all the Associations to remain in the State Con- 
vention. Separation will do no good/' In the Arkansas 
Baptist, January 25, 1901, Dr. W. A. Clark had this to 
say: "For twenty-five years we have stood loyally by the 
Baptists of Arkansas and all their work as constitutionally 
represented in the State Convention. The Paper has al- 
ways been absolutely in favor of the interests fostered by 
the State Convention and its Editor has in all these years 
pleaded for the State mission work, Sunday School work 
and higher education." 

Dr. Clark was Financial Secretary of the State Mission 
Board, and held other positions under the Board for years, 
under the present policy of the State Convention. The 
Convention pursued identically the same policy, also, when 
Ben M. Bogard so heartily indorsed it, and vehemently 
upbraided those who insinuated that he was in the least 
"opposed" to the State Convention or the State Board. 
But after the indorsement of this policy for "twenty-five 
years," Dr. Clark would have the Convention. "So MOD- 
IFY their methods of work that we can co-operate harmo- 
niously in our denominational work." Without doubt, 
those who want to "modify" or change the methods which 
have been in vogue, according to Ben M. Bogard, ever since 
the days of the Apostles, are the Innovators. The fact that 
in 1902 they wanted the Convention to "MODIFY" the 
methods of work which the Arkansas Baptists had indorsed 



140 Grapeshot and Canister 

for twenty-five years proves conclusively that the Con- 
vention is standing by the "ancient landmarks which the 
fathers have set," and that these modern Landmarkers 
have changed and "modified" the policy which they heartily 
indorsed until 1901. They are the Innovators, themselves 
being witnesses. Another evidence that these modern 
Landmarkers have forsaken the Old Paths is found in Ar- 
ticle XI of their Statement of Principles, adopted at 
Searcy, Ark., at the second session of the Landmark asso- 
ciation Oct. 31 to Nov. 3, 1902, as follows: "We invite 
all the Baptist churches of Arkansas, and we would not 
exclude any beyond our State borders, to DISCARD CON- 
VENTIONS, with their unscriptural METHODS and 
Corresponding or Missionary Secretaries, called by what- 
ever name, and associate themselves with US. We shall 
never agree to an ORGANIZED UNION or association 
with any body of men unless the office and work of Cor- 
responding Secretary be ABOLISHED, and we DEMAND 
that ALL Missionaries be sent out according to Acts 
11:22, 23, and Acts 13:1-3, and that they report back to 
the sending church, Acts 14:25-27, and that the churches 
co-operate in the support of the God-called, Church-sent 
missionaries, 2 Cor. 11 :8." For the arrogant arrogation 
of the MOST superlative arrogance, that assembly of dis- 
gruntles takes the prize. Not, since the memory of man 
runneth not to the contrary, hath such a body of command- 
ing little dictators met in holy conclave. No wonder there 
have been wars and rumors of wars, and men's hearts fail- 
ing them with fear. No wonder the earth has been trem- 
bling from Maine to the Golden Gate, and the geysers been 
in constant eruption, under the tread and at the "DE- 



Landmark Secession 141 

MAND" of such a Council of religious dignitaries ! They 
DEMAND that the Churches send out missionaries a cer- 
tain way, and they DEMAND that these missionaries re- 
port in a certain way, and they even DEMAND that the 
churches co-operate in their support. If s enough to make 
those medieval Baptists who gave their blood for the inde- 
pendence of the churches turn over in their graves. Not a 
Baptist Convention ever met on earth that ever had the 
remotest semblance of the shade of the shadow of such ar- 
rogant disrespect for the Churches. 

Ben M. Bogard, now Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, 
was a member of this Committee. The same Ben M. 
Bogard who says in his book on "Christian Union," which 
he has been selling until 1910, that the "New Testament 
settles the question of Missions, Conventions, Boards," etc. 
The same Ben M. Bogard, who said that "'Boards, Conven- 
tions, etc., were the principal causes of the division," that 
the "Hardshells do not practice those things, therefore, they 
are NOT the Primitive Baptists." (Christian Union, p. 
64.) If the Hardshells were not Primitive Baptists, be- 
cause THEY do not use Conventions and Boards, it fol- 
lows that the Landmarkers are not Primitive Baptists be- 
cause they do not use Boards and Conventions. See? 
(See Ms., p. 73.) See? This is the same Ben M. Bogard 
who said, Oct. 9, 1901 : "I am heartily in favor of the 
Arkansas Baptist State Convention. I want to preserve 
the State Convention and our State Mission Board. Who- 
ever says I am opposed to the State Convention or its work 
misrepresents me." — Arkansas Baptist. Only thirteen 
months later this same Ben M. Bogard, historian (?), 
Editor ( ?), scholar ( ?), author ( ?), pugilist, DEMANDS 



142 Grapeshot and Canister 

that independent, sovereign churches of Jesus Christ "dis- 
card Conventions and Boards" which, he declared, had 
been used from the days of the Apostles until Oct. 9, 1901. 
Reader, Who has left the old paths ? These pseudo-leaders 
declare that they have "discarded Conventions and Boards," 
which have been the settled policy of all genuine Baptists 
from the days of the Apostles. 

Landmarkism is a brand new departure, it's an innova- 
tion, themselves being witnesses. And it was reserved for 
them to be the only general body of Baptists in the world 
that DEMANDS certain things of the royal churches of 
Jesus Christ. They are not only the most modern of Bap- 
tist deflections, but they are decidedly the most arrogant. 
They NOW say, after eight years bush-whacking, that 
Conventions and Boards and Theological seminaries are 
the inventions of men, and hotbeds of heresy. Like the 
wasp these leaders get smaller and smaller and more in- 
flammatory as they increase in littleness. Who will not 
agree with us that this whole Landmark movement is an- 
other innovation, a brand new departure, from old-time 
Baptist practice. It's a modern innovation, just one step 
further away from Regular Missionary Baptists than the 
Hardshell schism of 1832. It is decidedly the youngest 
Baptist schism, a new denomination of only a few years. 

M. P. Matheny, Moderator of the General Association of 
the United States, 1910-11, says: 

"I have nothing to cover up or keep back from the people. 
The Gospel Mission Movement was a DISTINCT move- 
ment AWAY from Conventionism." (Ark. Baptist, June 
1, 1910.) Another of their Leaders, J. A. Scarboro, says: 
"Strong men, informed men, are leaving Conventionism and 



Landmark Secession 143 

taking strong ground against its innovations." (Plain 
Truth, Nov., 1909, p. 29.) 

Editor Ben M. Bogard says: "The brother thinks we 
did wrong in REFUSING to work in the Arkansas State 
Convention. He thinks we would have DONE BETTER 
to STAY IN and keep up a FUSS." (Ark. Bap., 5-4-1910.) 
These men have acknowledged that this Gospel Missioner- 
General Association movement is a departure from Con- 
ventionism, which Ben M. Bogard, their leading Editor, 
says was the policy of ALL Baptists from the times of the 
Apostles until 1832 ; and everyone knows we have had the 
same Conventionism since 1832, and Bogard heartily in- 
dorsed it until 1902. This movement began just a few 
years ago, according to their own testimony. "I desire to 
give your readers a brief epitome of the HISTORY of the 
beginnings of this much misunderstood and misrepresented 
MOVEMENT." (G. P. Bostie, China, quoted in B. B. B., 
p. 163.) In 1903, J. A. Scarboro said: "The controversy 
has been on now eleven years." (B. B. B., p. 249.) 1903- 
11-1892. The same author says : "The little HANDFUL 
of opponents BEGINNING in 1891, have grown into many 
thousands, etc. It has come to pass that Gospel Mission- 
ed are respectable, and DISSENTERS to Convention Epis- 
copacy can get a hearing where ten years ago (1899) they 
would have STARVED to death preaching their views on 
the subject in controversy." (Plain Truth, November, 
1909, p. 29.) 

So according to these defenders of Landmarkism, pre- 
sumably the best they have, their movement began with just 
a "little handful of opponents" to Conventionism less than 
twenty years ago. They concede their MODERN ORIGIN. 



144 Grapeshot and Canister 

Ben M. Bogard claims the honor of beginning this move- 
ment, the honor is also claimed for others. But all agree 
that this Landmark defection began not earlier than 1891. 
On this point Editor Bogard says : "I feel a little PROUD 
of the fact that the FIRST GUN in the current controversy 
on MISSIONS was fired by ME/' (Ark. Bap., July 20, 
1904.) Bogard ought to know. J. H. Milburn says: "He 
is the greatest oral controversialist in the United States" ; 
and Bogard says HE fired the FIRST gun in this contro- 
versy. If this Gospel Mission movement began in the days 
of the Apostles as some of the uninformed contend, Ben M. 
Bogard is NOW nearly twice as old as Methuselah. This 
might account for his theological vagaries and his mission 
somersaults. J. A. Scarboro says the movement started 
in 1891-2, and Ben M. Bogard declares HE "fired the 
FIRST Gun" against Conventions and Boards which, he 
says in his book, have been used by Baptists since the days 
of the Apostles. John the Baptist fired the first gun for the 
Missionary Baptists about 1880 years ago; but Ben M. 
Bogard fired the FIRST GUN for the Landmark Schism 
less than twenty years ago. Landmarkism is a Schism, an 
Innovation, not yet twenty years old, themselves being 
witnesses. 

John the Baptist fired the first Gun for the Missionary 
Baptists about A. D. 27-30, and Jesus instituted the 
Church, of the material prepared by John the Baptist, A. 
D. 30-31, about 1880 years ago. (Lu. 1 :15-17; Jno. 1 :29- 
47; Jno. 3:29.) Thomas Campbell fired the first GUN 
for the Campbellites about 1809-1810, and Alexander 
Campbell, his son, instituted the Campbellite Church, of 
the material prepared by Thomas Campbell, in 1811, at 



Landmark Secession 145 

Brush Kim, Washington County, Pa., about 99 years ago. 
(See Memoirs of A. Campbell, Eichardson.) John Taylor 
and Daniel Parker fired the first guns in the preparation 
of the material for the Hardshell Church, about 1819-1820, 
and Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, et al, organized the 
Hardshell Church at Black Bock, Md., September, 1832, 
about 78 years ago. Ben M. Bogard fired the "first GUN" 
for the Gospel Mission-Landmark-General Association folks 
less than 20 years ago, and, after a belabored effort, helped 
to organize the first Landmark Association in the world at 
Antioch church, suburbs of Little Eock, Ark., April 10- 
11-1902. Like the Hardshell schism, the Landmarker de- 
flection has already grown into a distinct denomination, 
declaring non-fellowship with all regular Missionary Bap- 
tists on the Mission Question. (See their own Testimony 
in this Book.) This modern Landmark movement is just 
another Schism, an INNOVATION of very recent date. 

"Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye in the ways, and see, 
and ask for the OLD PATHS, where is the GOOD WAY, 
and walk therein; but they said: We will NOT walk 
therein." (Jer. 6:16.) Is not history repeating itself? 

"For I know this, that grievous wolves shall enter in 
among you, NOT SPAEING the Flock; also of YOUE 
OWNSELVES shall men arise, speaking PEEVEESE 
things, to draw away disciples after them." (Paul, Acts 
20:29, 30.) 

"Children of the heavenly King, 
As ye journey let us sing; 
Sing our Savior's worthy praise, 
Glorious in His works and ways. 



146 Grapeshot and Canister 

"We are traveling home to God, 
In the WAY our fathers trod; 
They are happy now and we 
Soon their happiness shall see. 

"Lord, obediently we go, 
Gladly leaving ALL below ; 
Only Thou our Leader be, 
And we still will follow Thee." 



ADDENDA. 

It should be no surprise that leaders whose sense of ac- 
curacy is not a little impaired, should be rather stupid in 
their statement of facts. They are just put together 
wrong. 

1. Take the bold, but certainly unguarded, statements 
concerning the work of the Southern Baptist Convention 
in foreign lands. 

In order to arouse prejudice, it would seem, they assume 
that the money handled by the Convention is misused. 
Such charges, they know, have weight with honest but ill- 
advised people. On this point J. H. Milburn says: 

"When money is collected for one purpose and used for 
altogether another purpose it is as a matter of fact not 
only DECEPTION, but it is that which, in the common 
business transactions of life would be called right down 
DISHONESTY. Last year (1908) there was laid down at 
the feet, as it were, of the Foreign Board $402,000 to 
SCOOP OUT and DO with to its liking." (Mission Meth- 
ods, p. 311.) This is just a sample of hundreds of pages cir- 



Landmark Secession 147 

culated in tracts and books by these self-appointed conserv- 
ators of the faith. For reasons they left the conventions, 
after giving the best of their lives to convention work. 
But they must have a following, a constituency. They 
know that many good people are inherently opposed to ag- 
gressive movements, either in church or State, especially 
those movements that require money. They, therefore, 
arouse this native prejudice by creating suspicion and 
bringing wholesale charges against plans and policies, and 
against those who are in official position. This is the most 
effective weapon in the hands of the religious agitator. 

One pound of pressure can drive a falling body DOWN- 
WAED faster than one thousand pounds of pressure can 
drive it UPWAED : It is helped in its downward course 
by its own weight. A body moves the most rapidly along 
the path of least resistance. And human beings are the 
most easily led along the paths of their strongest inclina- 
tions. But a few observations: 

(1) We agree with our critic and his co-agitators that 
money collected for one thing and spent for another thing 
without consent is wrong. We are together on that point. 
But 

(2) We challenge his bold, unsupported assumption, that 
the money spent by the Board on Foreign fields for Car- 
penters and Blacksmiths and Physicians and Teachers, is 
MISUSED. We deny that it is money "collected for one 
thing and spent for another." If there is "deception or 
dishonesty," as he charges, the indictment lies at the door 
of our critic. He had the facts before his face which dis- 
prove his arrogant assumption. But there are none so 
blind as those who won't see. Article II. of the Constitu- 



148 Grapeshot and Canister 

tion of the S. B. C. reads as follows: "It shall be the 
DESIGN of the Convention to promote foreign and do- 
mestic missions, and OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTS 
connected with the Redeemer's kingdom, and to combine foi 
this purpose such portions of the Baptist denomination in 
the United States as may DESIRE a general organization 
for Christian BENEVOLENCE, which shall FULLY 
RESPECT the independence and equal rights of the 
churches.' , 

This information, vital as it was to the issue involved, 
was before his eyes when he wrote the foregoing slander- 
ous indictment. He either did not want the truth, or he 
wanted to pervert the truth, or both; he may take either 
horn of the trilemma he chooses. Had he read only 
SEVEN short lines, without the purpose and effort to per- 
vert them, he would have saved himself the arduous task 
of a belabored book of 287 pages filled and reeking with 
acrimonious charges of dishonesty and fraud against us for 
doing the very things for which the Constitution provides. 
Our Constitution provides not only for "foreign and domes- 
tic missions," but also for "OTHER important objects 
connected with the Redeemer's kingdom," and proposes to 
"combine such portions of the Baptist denomination in the 
United States as MAY DESIRE a general organization for 
Christian benevolence," etc. What law of God is broken, 
what rule of the Bible is transgressed, what principle of 
truth is subverted, by that Article in the Constitution or by 
the practice of what it provides for by those who "DE- 
SIRE" to do so? Did the early Christians spurn their 
Lord because he was a Carpenter ? Did they fail to support 



Landmark Secession 149 

Luke because he was a Physician ? Did they refuse to give 
Paul "wages" because he was a tent-maker? 

Did they reject Levi because he was a tax-gatherer? 
Did they withhold their benevolence from Timothy because 
he was a Teacher? Did they drive the husbandmen home 
from the mission fields under the charge of "fraud and de- 
ception and the misuse of mission money/' just because 
they were farmers? Who will affirm that they did? Did 
they not rather support the Carpenter and the Physician 
and the tent-maker, and the blacksmith, and the custom 
gatherer, and the Teacher, and the farmer? Did not God 
set some in the Church, Apostles, prophets, teachers, mira- 
cles, gifts, HELPS? (1 Cor. 12:28.) 

Shall we cease our testimony for Christ, because the 
Apostles are ail dead ? Shall we give up preaching because 
the prophets have all deceased? Shall we call in our 
Christian Physicians from the mission fields because the 
gift of healing has ceased? Shall we call our Christian 
teachers from their God-given work of teaching the differ- 
ent tongues of earth, simply because some religious dys- 
peptic cannot learn Greek and Latin without a miracle? 
Shall we give up the "HELPS" which God has ordained 
for His glory and for the salvation of the lost denizens of 
earth, just because some religious crank has lost prestige 
with his denomination and got too peevish to work ? Should 
we not rather, like Paul the aged, use all means available, 
that by ALL MEANS we might save some ? 

"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made 
myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And 
unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the 
Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, 



150 Grapeshot and Canister 

that I might gain them that are under the law; to them 
that are without law, being not without law to God, but 
under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are 
without law; to the weak became 1 as weak, that I might 
gain the weak; I am made all things to ALL men, that I 
might by ALL means save some. And this I DO for the 
gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 
(1 Cor. 9:19-23.) It is a well-known fact that the opium 
vendors and the slave traders have brought the Christian 
religion into disrepute in China and Africa. Those who 
have been conceived and born and reared and trained under 
the deadening influence of heathen worship, have their 
hearts steeled against Christianity and our Western civili- 
zation. For these and other reasons they cannot be ap- 
proached as are men and women of Christian lands. These 
facts, as well as the practice of the Apostles adverted to, 
have taught us that it were infinitely better for the mes- 
sengers of God to adopt some calling in those lands which 
will bring them in touch with the home life of the people 
and give them a hearing when otherwise they would have 
none. It is not unscriptural to be "made all things to all 
men, that we might by all means save some ; and this we do 
for the gospel's sake." (1 Cor. 9 :22, 23.) 

If a carpenter or a blacksmith or a farmer or a physician 
or a teacher, with the Word of God in his hand, should win 
a soul to Christ which he could not otherwise so easily win, 
he is not only carrying out the command of our Lord 
(Matt. 28 :19, 20), but he is emulating the example of the 
early disciples. 

Yes, we are not only carrying out the clearly stated pro- 
visions of our Constitution, which is nobody's business but 



Landmark Secession 151 

ours; but our Constitution also is clearly within New Tes- 
tament principles. But before Jehovah, I lie not, my con- 
science also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I 
rather, a thousand times rather win the souls of men with 
a teacher's chart, or challenge their respect with a Physi- 
cian's pill-bags, or plow the way into their affections with 
a farmer's share, or cut the way for truth into their hearts 
with a carpenter's chisel; then stand before Jehovah with 
a heart lacerated with the blade of persecution in the hands 
of disgruntled and faultfinding critics and claim the tro- 
phies won through the blood of Christ, than to use the 
money given for missions as some of our critics have done, 
going up and down in the land maligning the brethren and 
disrupting the blood-bought churches of Jesus Christ. 
2. Of the State Conventions J. H. Milburn says : 
"A Baptist State Convention CANNOT be found which 
will not admit societies and other organizations to repre- 
sent on a plane of equality with the churches, and vote in 
the transaction of business." (Mission Methods, p. 124.) 
Remarks: (1) If this unqualified statement were true, 
what New Testament principle would be subverted? But 
(2) The only serious objection that we have to the fore- 
going accusation is, that it is not so, the reverend gentle- 
man, from Union City, Tenn., to the contrary, notwith- 
standing. Article II., Constitution Arkansas Baptist State 
Convention, reads this way: "The Convention shall be 
composed of messengers from regular Baptist churches 
which are in sympathy with the principles and purposes of 
this constitution, and which DESIRE to co-operate with 
this Convention, and shall be entitled to seats upon pres- 
entation of their proper credentials, or satisfactory evidence 



152 Grapeshot and Canister 

of their appointment. Each church shall be entitled to 
three messengers, with one additional member for every fifty 
members, or major fraction thereof, above one hundred." 
(See Convention Annual.) Why should a Brother with 
such ostensible learning, and with so much self-confessed 
erudition make a statement like that and put it in book 
form when he should have known that it was positively 
false. Echo answers why? Nothing but a Church can 
represent in the Arkansas Baptist State Convention. 

3. All through the literature circulated by these Land- 
mark Leaders (we do not censure the rank and file of their 
followers who have been misled) the claim is made that 
the State Convention also misappropriates money, that they 
take money appropriated for missions, and supplement pas- 
tors' salaries, where there are weak churches, help to main- 
tain the Baptist Advance, and distribute other religious 
literature, etc. Of course, such appeal is to arouse preju- 
dice among the unwary. What are the facts? Article I, 
section 2, of the Constitution, says: "The OBJECT of 
this Convention shall be to preach the gospel throughout 
out State and to evangelize the world; to aid by appro- 
priate and Scriptural means our destitute and feeble 
churches; to supply the State with looks and Tracts best 
calculated to inculcate the doctrines and ordinances of 
Christ and to stimulate missionary effort; to encourage 
ministerial and Christian and general education and to 
gather and preserve denominational statistics." Is there 
one principle of that constitution violated by the policies 
of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention? Yet who has 
not heard the cry of "fraud and misuse of money." Why 



Landmark Secession 153 

do intelligent men resort to such misrepresentations to 
arouse prejudice and create strife and division? 

4. When these accusations and insinuations fail, some of 
these leaders raise the cry of Bossism, usurpation of au- 
thority. And, since a sure enough Baptist does not pro- 
pose to stand hitched anywhere, this plea sometimes ap- 
peals to those who have not informed themselves concern- 
ing the facts in the case. The Convention would not if 
it could, and could not if it would, exercise the least 
authority over the least Baptist Church in the least com- 
munity of earth. In fact, the Convention is composed of 
those only who "DESIBE to co-operate with the Conven- 
tion, who are "elected" by their respective Churches. The 
Constitution of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention 
positively declares : 

"This Convention shall never exercise any authority 
whatever over any church, nor shall it in any way inter- 
fere with the constitution of any church or with the exer- 
cise of its functions as the only ecclesiastical body, but will 
always cheerfully recognize and uphold the absolute inde- 
pendence of the churches." (Article III.) 

Then why should these Landmark Leaders make such 
appeals which are so much out of harmony with the cold 
facts? Is there not a cause? These are only a few of 
the many ways adopted by these Leaders to poison the 
minds of the brethren against the policies of Conventionism. 
Conventions were all right while these men were with them, 
but when they saw fit to "discard Conventions and Boards" 
then Boards and Conventions were all wrong. Charges of 
Fraud, Corruption, Embezzlement, accompanied with end- 
less invectives, insinuations and innuendoes, have been 



154 Grapeshot and Canister 

their stock in trade ever since they left the Conventions. 
Such a course leaves the impression that it was not so 
much convictions of truth and duty that caused them to 
"discard Conventions and Boards/' as some other cause. 
Hence we raise the question: 

WHY DID W. A. CLARK, J. A. SCARBORO, J. H. MILBURN AND 
BEN M. BOGARD LEAVE THE CONVENTION ? 

Their plea that the Board was usurping authority in elect- 
ing Secretaries, Evangelists or Missionaries, and spending 
money for tracts, papers, or other agencies, will not stand 
the test. In Article V, Section 2, of the Constitution, we 
read: 

"The Executive Board shall elect a Missionary Secretary 
to work under the direction of the Board, and they shall 
employ any other agencies, such as general missionaries 
and evangelists, office help, and any means, such as tracts, 
etc., which in their judgment may inure to the most speedy 
and rapid evangelization of our State and of the world." 
(See Minutes State Con.) 

We have constitutional right for every thing we do. 
None but messengers from the Churches can represent in 
the Arkansas Baptist State Convention. There is, there- 
fore, no usurpation of authority as these Landmark Leaders 
charge. Is it a misappropriation of money to do just what 
the Messengers of the churches in Convention assembled 
elected us to do? Such perversion of the plain facts is 
inexcusable, not to say down-right mean, in any Editor or 
Author. When we see SO MUCH Editorial petifoggery 
we are reminded of the two men who were reading the 
following inscription on a tombstone : "Here lies an Editor 



Landmark Secession 155 

and a truthful man." After reading ike words carefully, 
one of them innocently asked : "Why did they bury BOTH 
men in the same grave?" It may never be known cer- 
tainly just why these men left the Conventions, after they 
had spent the best of their lives in Conventions with earth's 
purest and best workers, like Eagle, and Eaton, and Pen- 
dleton, and J. R. Graves et al. ; neither do we charge that 
they left out of insincere motives. But the evidence shows 
that while they got what they wanted they were strong 
Convention advocates, as late as 1901-2. And we believe 
it is our duty before God and our children, to give at least 
a few of the historical facts concerning these Landmark 
Leaders, and then let our readers decide for themselves 
why these men left the Convention. 

W. A. CLARK 

Was an advocate of our Boards and Conventions, as he 
confesses, elsewhere in these pages, for more than twenty- 
five years. He had been Financial Secretary and held other 
positions under the State Board for years. See his own 
words. But he made a sudden change in 1902 and helped 
to organize the Landmark Association. Why his sudden 
change? The following conversation, which was published 
in the Baptist Advance, may help us to decide why Dr. 
Clark made such a sudden flop to the Landmarkers : 

"The following conversation took place between a mem- 
ber of the Clarksville church and Eld. W. A. Clark, 
of the Arkansas Baptist, a few days after the Jonesboro 
Convention : 

"Member — Brother Clark, we are without a pastor at 
Clarksville. Can you suggest someone for us ? 



156 Grapeshot and Canister 

"Clark — Well, I do not know just now; it may be that 
I could serve your church. The State Board will have a 
meeting in a few days to elect a Corresponding Secretary. 
They may elect me. If the members on the Board from 
the Associations are in the meeting I am sure I will be 
elected. If they are not there, Dr. Barton will be elected. 
If I am not elected Corresponding Secretary, perhaps I 
can be your pastor. 

"A few days past, the Board had its meeting. Dr. Bar- 
ton was elected. The same member met Brother Clark just 
after the Board meeting and remarked: 'Well, I suppose 
Dr. Barton was elected.' 

"Clark — Yes, and the Baptists of this State have no 
more use for a Corresponding Secretary of Missions than 
a rat has for hair on its tail. 

"The member referred to is ready to verify this state- 
ment.-^. T. Howell." (Bap. Advance, Sept. 24, 1902.) 

Did the failure of the Board to elect Clark Correspond- 
ing Secretary have anything to do with his sudden change 
of mind about the Scripturalness of the Convention? Dr. 
Clark spent the best of his life in the Convention, and being 
on the Board he had every opportunity to know if things 
were going wrong. Next take 

J. A. SCARBORO, 

Who says : "We put twenty years, the BEST in our life, 
into the system, ignorant of its internal workings. As 
an honest man we had to leave it because deeply and eter- 
nally convinced that it was not of God." (B. B. B., 
p. 268, 1903.) 

These words were written some time before June 25, 



Landmark Secession 157 

1903, when the author wrote the Preface to B. B. B. Then 
why did he leave the Convention? Certainly NOT because 
of "ignorance" of Convention policies. Because on Jan- 
uary 28, 1902, just sixteen months and twenty-eight days 
before, he wrote the Preface to the fourth Edition of his 
GO-OLOGY, a booklet he wrote in defence of Conven- 
tionism, while he was doing mission work in Georgia and 
had every facility for knowing the work of Conventions 
that he has now. In 1902 Scarboro said of Convention 
Baptists : 

"Of all people, WE have the key to right motives in our 
adherence to Bible doctrines, and to right METHODS in 
adherence to Bible practice. Freed from the cumbersome 
Machinery of Popery and Episcopacy, are we not in posi- 
tion to go at once? To send a missionary from every 
church if we wish ? To utilize all the force in local churches 
without losing any aggregated or co-operative power?" 
(Go-ology, pp. 51-52.) 

Could J. B. Gambrell beat that in defence of Conven- 
tionism? But he continues: 

"Some object to the Methods used in prosecuting mis- 
sion work, as they say, and therefore do not assist. It is 
easier to find fault than to make improvements. Many 
who object to the Methods used have no method of their 
own, proving thereby that they are without the WILL to 
obey the Lord. As a general rule, it will be found upon 
inquiry that those who object to mission work and Methods 
know little or nothing of either, but engage in a sort of 
wholesale criticism and object to everything and everybody 
in the work of missions. Investigation generally reveals 
the fact that those who are readiest to object to Methods 



158 Grapeshot and Canister 

and criticise those who are trying to carry on the work of 
missions know little about it and care less. Tradition pre- 
serves many things that happened in the early part of this 
century in Georgia, among which is this scrap of doggerel 
on Indian missions : 

" 'Away down there in the Seminole nation, 
A pine-bark pulpit, and a missionary station; 
They've all gone down to study out a plan 
To cheat the Indians out of their land.' 

"The object of this versifier was evidently to associate 
missionaries and land-thieves in the minds of his 
hearers, and so stir up their prejudices against mis- 
sions." (This very policy is now employed by Scarboro, 
Milburn, et al. See their own words elsewhere in this 
book. — Ed.) "I remember well, when a child, hearing 
so-called preachers ridicule missions and missionaries by 
the hour, charging them with various crimes, not the least 
of which was stealing the money collected for missions for 
their own use." (Is it not strange that Scarboro, Milburn 
& Co. are NOW doing the very things which so disgusted 
them when they were younger?) "Even so late as the past 
month a gentleman of undoubted veracity told me he heard 
but a short time since that it required a dollar to send a 
dollar to the missionary." (Similar charges are made 
today by these Landmark leaders. — Ed.) "Such people 
are not only willing to remain in gross and 'wilful ignorance 
of the truth concerning missions, but also willing to preju- 
dice others like themselves against it by misrepresentation. 
The blind lead the blind, and all fall into the ditch of 
error." (Go-ology, p. 64.) (This is exactly what Con- 



Landmark Secession 159 

vention people are telling Brother Scarboro and his fellow- 
leaders today. — Ed.) But Scarboro continues: "Each 
State Convention constituent to the Southern Baptist Con- 
vention has a State Mission Board having the OVEE- 
SIGHT AND MANAGEMENT (this was true in 1892 
and 1902, and is so today. But Scarboro was with them 
then; he is not with them NOW. — Ed.) of the mission 
work of the denomination in that particular State, the 
appointment of missionaries, collecting and disbursing of 
funds, etc. Address the Corresponding Secretary of the 
Baptist State Mission Board for the respective States." 
^Go-ology, p. 75.) But he continues: "No people in the 
world are better supplied with educational institutions 
than Baptists. For this purpose there are theological de- 
partments in most of our State denominational colleges, 
but our BEST and only real Theological Seminary is that 
at Louisville, Ky." (We now have the Southwestern The- 
ological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, under that Prince 
of living preachers and theologians, Dr. B. H. Carroll. — 
Ed.) "You cannot afford to throw your life away in 
ignorance when there are such possibilities to secure and 
use an education, and this institution can and will help you 
in a most GRATIFYING manner. For full and accurate 
information concerning the work of the entire Baptist 
denomination, South and North, with the names and ad- 
dresses of all Boards, officers, Schools, colleges and Semi- 
naries, male and female, missionaries, ministers, Conven- 
tions, papers, societies — in a word, if you want to find out 
ALL that can be known about Baptist institutions in the 
world, send for the American Baptist Year-Book to the 
American Baptist Publication Society, Atlanta, Ga., or 



160 Grapeshot and Canister 

Philadelphia, Pa." (Go-ology, p. 76.) These are the 
words of J. A. Scarboro, the same Scarboro who is NOW 
SO intemperate in his denunciation of Conventions. They 
are quoted from GO-OLOGY, J. A. Scarboro, fourth edi- 
tion, Statesboro, Ga. In his Preface to the fourth edition, 
January 28, 1902, Scarboro says: "We desire to record 
here our grateful thanks for the generous and timely assist- 
ance of the Pastors and churches, in selling this fourth 
edition of this work. We send it forth with the prayer 
that the Divine blessing may attend the reading and the 
readers." Thus in theory he endorsed Conventionism until 
1902, but in practice he had been denouncing it for some 
years. Why did he leave Conventionism? Hear his own 
words : 

"The writer cannot forget how, when he was deprived 
of employment, support, reputation, sympathy, and looked 
into tha faces of his own dear children, beggared BE- 
CAUSE (mark his "because."— Ed.) their father had 
honestly and innocently written his views on a debatable 
question." (B. B. B., p. 344, 1903.) 

Here Scarboro positively avers that he lost his support, 
employment, before he left the Convention. Did this have 
anything to do with his leaving Conventionism ? The fol- 
lowing was received from Dallas, Texas, dated 7-16-1910, 
in reply to a letter of inquiry : 
"Rev. Allen Hill Autry, 
Nashville, Ark. 

My Dear Brother: The facts you want are as follows: 
J. A. Scarboro was employed by the State Board of Georgia 
when I was President of Mercer. I knew him well. He 
was doing some special work. After a while it was deemed 



Landmark Secession 161 

best to elect a man to have special charge of that institute 
work and Scarboro was not elected. He then began his 
fight on the State Board of Georgia, and has been fighting 
Boards ever since. J. B. Gambrell." 

Dr. Gambrell is now the able Editor of the Baptist 
Standard, Dallas, Tex. We will next take 

J. H. MILBURN. 

Milburn has been off and on, for and against, the Con- 
vention for several years. It's no wonder that he could 
not stay and work with the brethren whom he had mis- 
treated. His reasons for leaving the Convention, like 
Scarboro's, are somewhat conflicting. Of the Arkansas 
Baptist State Convention, J. H. Milburn, then Editor of 
the Arkansas Baptist, said editorially: 

"The Convention is over, and its final action on all ques- 
tions was so manifestly in the Spirit of our Savior that we 
most heartily and earnestly join in helping to carry out all 
the wishes expressed and PLANS adopted." (Ark. Bap., 
Nov. 21, 1900.) 

June 11, 1902, Milburn says: 

"It was not until the Arkansas Baptist State Conven- 
tion at Hope (Nov., 1900. — Ed.) that my faith in Conven- 
tions, Boards and secretarial management was completely 
shaken. It was the "spirit" manifested on the part of the 
Convention and its supporters more than all else which 
caused me to doubt the propriety of Conventions, Boards, 
Secretaries and other human expedients, etc." (Ark. Bap.) 

Here this irate opponent to Conventions boldly declares 
that HE left the Convention because "its final action on all 
questions was so manifestly in the spirit of our Savior." 



162 Grapeshot and Canister 

Perhaps we should not gainsay the brothers statement, 
but we are inclined to think that the real cause of his hate 
for Conventions lies further back. No man can love those 
whom he has maltreated. We give the facts for what they 
are worth. We owe it to our children, and our children's 
children. The following records we take from the Minutes 
of the State Mission Board, in 1889 : 

"The Board met in the room of Hon. M. F. Locke, 
Capitol Hotel. Present : Jas. P. Eagle, President ; J. B. 
Searcy, J. K. Brantly, W. E. Atkinson, A. W. Files, Treas- 
urer, M. F. Locke and W. A. Forbes, Secretary. Prayer 
was offered by J. B. Searcy. The President then stated 
the object of the meeting: That Eld. J. H. Milburn, 
Editor of the Arkansas Baptist, had written to Hon. M. F. 
Locke a letter of very slanderous character about the mem- 
bers of the State Mission Board. He desired to know what 
steps should be taken in the matter. The letter was then 
read and the following resolutions passed and signed by all 
the Board: 

" 'Whereas, in a letter written by Bev. J. H. Milburn to 
Col. M. F. Locke, on December 18, 1888, said Milburn 
used language charging : (1) That there existed in Arkan- 
sas a Baptist ring. (2) That the said Baptist ring, it was 
intimated, was composed of the State Board, is a corrupt 
body. (3) That the Baptists of the State were dominated 
by a few designing men. (4) That said so-called Baptist 
ring has murdered and is murdering the cause of Christ 
in the state. (5) He alleges unchristian and ungentle- 
manly conduct against Bev. W. A. Forbes, A. B. Miller 
and J. B. Searcy. (6) He uses language calculated to 
east reflection upon the President of the State Board, Rev. 



Landmark Secession 163 

Jas. P. Eagle. (7) And casts a very serious reflection 
upon several members of the State Mission Board; and 

" 'Whereas, we disclaim any knowledge of any Baptist 
"ring" in the State, and if there be such a "ring" we 
desire to know it; and 

" 'Whereas, these several charges are very grave, we 
therefore demand of the said J. H. Milburn to furnish the 
following information : 1. The existence of the said Bap- 
tist "ring," of whom said "ring" is composed. 2. Who are 
the corrupt and designing men who are dominating over 
the Baptists of the State. 3. Who are the men who have and 
are murdering the cause of Christ in the State, and the 
means that have been and are being used. 4. We demand 
that he furnish the name of the Brother who says he is anx- 
ious to spend five hundred dollars in unmasking the corrup- 
tion of the "ring." 5. That he name the facts that can be 
brought to light that will astonish the Baptists. 6. We 
demand that he be required to answer whether he has made 
similar charges to others than Brother Locke, either verbally 
or written; and 7. We demand that he make good the sev- 
eral charges and insinuations, or that he admit in writing 
that he has been guilty of misrepresentation and slander 
against the members of the State Board and the several 
Brethren herein mentioned; and 8. That unless he com- 
plies with the above demands that charges of slander and 
falsehood will be preferred against him in the church to 
which he is amenable; and that Bros. W. E. Atkinson, 
J. K. Brantly and A. W. Files be and are hereby appointed 
to deliver a copy of this paper to the said J. H. Milburn 
and receive his response thereto. Signed : James P. Eagle, 
President; W. A. Forbes, Secretary: A. W. Files, Treas- 



164 Grapeshot and Canister 

urer; J. K. Brantley, J. B. Searcy, M. F. Locke, W. E. 
Atkinson. Moved that the Committee prepare charges 
against J. H. Milburn if he fail to give satisfaction/ 

"June 4, 1889 — State Mission Board met in Little Eock. 
The Board was called to order by the President, J. P. 
Eagle. The roll being called, the following named brethren 
answered: J. P. Eagle, President; A. W. Files, Treas- 
urer; W. A. Forbes, Secretary; M. F. Locke, W. E. 
Atkinson. Minutes of the former meeting read and ap- 
proved. The Committee appointed at a former meeting to 
prepare charges of slander and falsehood against J. H. 
Milburn, in case he refused to make good or retract his 
charges against the State Board, reported through Brother 
Files that he had sent by registered letter a copy of the 
resolutions at former meeting, but as yet had received no 
reply. Committee continued/'' 

With that record before us, we think we should take his 
statements on the mission question with a grain of salt, 
when he professed such inordinate love for his brethren 
that it approached idolatry. His words are: 

"There is such a thing as denominational idolatry. We 
are NOW confident (1908) that we loved the Baptist 
cause and the brethren inordinately. Since the writer 
underwent such a conflict of mind as he has, he is glad, 
yea, rejoices, in the fact that God has thus enlightened 
him and led him to the point of a firm decision in regard 
to, and a steadfast dislike FOR, those innovations of men 
which he had unwittingly learned to love, simply because 
they were Baptist institutions." (M. Methods, p. 20.) 

Is it possible that Milburn's experience with the State 
Mission Board had anything to do with bringing him "to 



Landmark Secession 165 

the point of a firm decision and dislike" for Conventions? 
I'll not affirm that it did, but does it not look just a little 
suspicious ? 

It's a new theory in ministerial comity when one must 
turn enemy and fight his brethren, and make all sorts of 
false accusations against their work, and spend his time 
trying to disrupt churches, just to keep from "loving them 
inordinately, even unto idolatry." But we are in the age 
of new discoveries. Finally we ask : Why did 

BEN M. BOGARD 

leave the Convention ? We deem it just to our posterity to 
let them know just how this man has been related to our 
mission work for the past twenty years. In 1890 Bogard 
applied to the Foreign Mission Board for foreign mission 
work. In 1894 he declared in his booklet, Christian Union, 
that Boards, Conventions, etc., were Scriptural. He was a 
member of the S. B. Convention in 1900, on the money 
basis. October 9, 1901, he said : "I want to preserve the 
State Convention and our State Mission Board." Novem- 
ber 15-19, 1901, he said : "We commend the work of the 
Home Mission Board as worthy of our prayerful, moral 
and financial support, and we recommend that ALL our 
churches do ALL they can, as in their wisdom they deem 
best, for the promotion of this work in the South, and in 
the Island of Cuba." (Min. S. Con., 1901, p. 57.) Bogard 
read this' report and signed it with his own hand. In 
April, 1902, he assisted in the organization of the Land- 
mark Association, which opposes Conventions. And now 
he says: "Xowhere in the Scriptures do we read of a 
Convention appointing a Board or a Committee for any 



166 Grape shot and Canister 

purpose whatever." (Way Book, p. 27.) He says in the 
Arkansas Baptist: "I did buy a half interest in the 
Arkansas Baptist, back yonder, from Clark the Yankee, 
just to get to fight the Boards." What has so enraged him 
against Boards and Conventions? We think there were 
two things, at least, which have incensed Bogard against 
Conventions — he failed to control the Convention at Hope, 
November, 1900, and at Paragould, 1901, and he failed to 
get the title of D. D. from Ouachita College because he 
wrote his own recommendation, which they thought no 
reputable minister should do. In defense of our opinion 
we give our readers Bogard's own words, from his own 
handwriting, which were published in fac similes in the 
Baptist Advance, March 18, 1903. The letters following 
were written to E. A. Moore, Eldorado Springs, Mo. Two 
of them were written to Dr. J. W. Conger. We give them 
just as he wrote them, insofar as they bear upon the D. D. 
proposition. Let our readers decide for themselves. 
Bogard is now one of the Leaders among the Landmarkers. 
Following are the letters ; they explain themselves : 

"Searcy, Ark., Dec, 12-1900. 
"Dear Bro. Moore: Are you dead or asleep, or on a 
journey ? What is the matter with you ? I have not heard 
from you for two months at least. Now I don't know 
whether you would know me or not after the threshing T 
got at the Baptist State Convention. They voted me down 
by a big majority and sustained Barton. It was a mere 
happen so. The Baptists of the State are with me, have 
so expressed themselves by resolution at associations, but 
they stayed away from the Convention and the Bartonites 



Landmark Secession 167 

were all there. I don't believe he could have scared up a 
respectable man in the State on his side that was not there. 
I made a strong fight against odds but they outvoted me. 
I want to ask a favor. It is a favor, too, that you will be 
surprised at. I want the title of D. D. and it is in your 
power to get it for me. I know that with thinking people 
there is nothing in the title hut with the masses it means a 
great deal. I want it because by it I will be enabled to 
exert more influence. The Southwest Baptist College, 
Bolivar, Mo., will, I am sure, give me title if a proper 
petition is sent in. What is needed is a lot of representa- 
tive men to suggest it to the college and the work will be 
done. I can furnish you a list of names of representative 
men who will say I ought to have it and you can write to 
them and get what they have to say and embody it all in a 
petition to the college and that will end it. It will take 
about five dollars worth of postage, stationary, etc., for you 
will always inclose self-addressed stamped envelope to who- 
ever you may write and I can furnish a good list. If you will 
agree to do me this kindness, I will forward you the money 
to pay for postage, stationary, etc., and with it a list of 
names and the form of letter you should write to each, etc. 
The work of getting up the petition ought to begin by the 
first of the year, to allow for delays in correspondence, etc., 
and to get in the petition in time for the Faculty and 
Trustees to act at their Spring meeting. Will you do me 
this favor? 

Regards, etc. Of course the contents of this letter is 
strictly confidential. Yours as ever, 

"Ben M. Bogarp.'* 



168 Grapeshot and Canister 

"Searcy, Ark., Dec, 19-1900. 

"Dear Bro. Moore: Your letter received. Thank you 
for your proffered services. I send a list of names and a 
letter form on other sheets for you to use. Begin the work 
of preparing the letters and self-addressed envelopes now 
but date all letters, Jan. 1, 1901. If you begin now and 
work! at odd times you can get them all ready by that 
time without rushing and sending them in one mail on 
Jan. 1. Between now and that time I will send the $5.00/' 

Omitting some personal matters, Bogard continues : 

"Here are thirty names of representative men, all of 
whom know me, and I think their answers will be favor- 
able. Send all the answers to me and I will rule out any 
that I think will be unfavorable, and arrange them so as 
to make a good showing, and return it to you to make a 
copy on the typewriter, and then it will be ready to go to 
Southwest Baptist College, Bolivar, Mo., for their action. 
On another sheet I send form of letter. Ben M. Bogard." 
(Here follows list of names — and after them the Form of 
Letter.— Ed.) 

"Eldorado Springs, Mo., Jan. 1-1901. 

"Eld. 

"My Dear Brother: I address this letter to you, with 
self-addressed stamped envelope, for your reply, to get your 
opinion concerning a matter in which I am interested. I 
am hoping that some college may confer the title of Doctor 
of Divinity upon Eld. Ben M. Bogard, of Searc}', Ark. I 
write to you to get your opinion about the matter, Do 



Landmark Secession 169 

you think he should have the title? By answering soon 
you will greatly oblige, Yours, R. A. Moore." 

"Searcy, Ark., Dec. 28-1900. 

"Dear Brother Moore: Please find enclosed $5.00 
which will cover the expense of the correspondence I have 
Imposed on you. I send ten other names on another sheet. 
Write them also. That makes forty letters for you to 
write and forty self-addressed stamped envelopes for you 
to enclose. One dollar and sixty cents in stamps besides 
your stationary at least. Besides you may have to further 
correspond with some of them. Then, when the petition 
is made out, you will have to write to the college and after 
the D. D. is conferred at least twenty letters must be writ- 
ten to as many Baptist papers so that they may let the fact 
be known, etc. It will take nearly $5.00 by the time you 
get through with it. Very truly yours, Ben M. Bogard." 

(Here follows list of names. — Ed.) 

"Searcy, Ark. Jan. 7-1901. 

"Dear Bro. Moore: Your letter, stating that you had 
mailed the forty letters as I indicated, received. Eld. 
J. "S. Hall, in writing to me on a business matter, enclosed 
the letter you sent to him and asked me not to give him 
away, as having told you, as you might (not — Ed.) want 
me to know it, etc. Of course I will not let you know 
that I know anything about what you are doing. It would 
be useless to inform you that I know you are working to 
get the D. D. for me and I am therefore not going to do it. 
If you find out that I am on to it, it is all right, but I 



170 Grapeshot and Canister 

am not going to tell you. Do you understand? If some 
of the parties do not respond, write again and tell them 
you want their answer whether favorable or unfavorable. 
This is a good way for me to find out what the boys think 
of me anyway. * * * 

Very truly, Yours, 

"Ben M. Bogard." 

"Searcy, Ark., Jan. 21-1901. 

"Dear Bro. Moore: Your letter received ten days ago, 
and I have not answered because up to date I have had 
nothing to say worth saying. I expected the replies you 
received to be 'leopard like' as you expressed it. But we 
don't need to use the spots on the 'leopard' when we deal 
with the college. Write a letter to Prof. E. B. Graham, 
A. M., Bolivar, Mo., and ask him when a petition to the 
College for granting an honorary degree could be heard 
and acted on. Tell him that you intend to present such a 
petition for me. Don't hesitate to call my name as Graham 
and I are the best of friends. His answer will be a guide 
to you in sending the petition in. I should also be glad 
to see Prof. Graham's reply to your letter. * * * 
"Very truly, 

"Ben M. Bogard." 

"Searcy, Ark., Feb. 18-1901. 

"Dear Bro. Moore: Your letter received. You have 
succeeded well in getting so many and no doubt by this 
time all have answered who intend to do so. So send on 
the letters you have. If Prof. Graham has not answered 



Landmark Secession 171 

you yet write to him again. He no doubt, in the multi- 
tude of his cares, has forgotten it. Possibly the letter was 
lost. * * * Very truly yours, 

"Ben M. Bogard/' 

"Searcy, Ark., March 5-1901. 

"Dear Bro. Moore: Your letter, and also the regis- 
tered package of letters, received. I think the answers are 
remarkably favorable. The ones I most desired to give 
favorable answers have done so. And I am surprised 
that not one of them said 'no.' Some 'damned me with 
faint praise' but only one or two. Altogether the answers 
are satisfactory. I am especially pleased with Coleman's, 
Ford's, Moody's, Eaton's, Harvey's, Barker's, Doyle's, Spur- 
line's, Gregston's, Hamlin's, Prof. Howell's, etc. Such an 
endorsement would, it seems to me, get anything for a 
man. And I forgot to mention Hall's — the best com- 
mendation of all. I shall draw up the petition in correct 
form and send it to you. Write at once to Eld. T. N. 
Compton, D. D., Henderson, Ky., and ask him if he will 
not personally present the petition, with the letters of 
endorsement, to the Faculty and Trustees of Bethel Col- 
lege, Eussellville, Ky. He says in his letter that he will 
do anything in his power and asks you to 'command him.' 
Compton is the man to go before Bethel College. Comp- 
ton is now at Henderson in a protracted meeting. Send 
the letters in care of Eld. \V. F. Taylor. I shall send the 
books as you suggest to Bolivar. I shall present a copy to 
each of the other colleges also in due time. Of course I 
knew that some men were opposed to the title of D. D. and 



172 Grapeshot and Canister 

I am not really in favor of it, but the title is given and the 
man who has it is elevated in the estimation of the ma- 
jority of people and majorities rule in this country. * ' * * 
I certainly appreciate what several say, viz., that I am too 
big a man to have such a title. At least three say that. 
Of course they are mistaken. * * * Very truly yours, 

"Ben M. Bogard." 

"Searcy, Ark., April 22-1901. 

"Dear Bro. Moore: Your letter, with Wittenbraker's 
and Compton's letter, received. I thoroughly understand 
Compton. He is afraid Bethel College will refuse and he 
does not want me to fail. Send to him the petition — a 
copy of it — and explain that you will have it presented to 
two other colleges. If we fail there it makes no difference. 
I have drawn three forms. One for the Southwest Baptist 
College, Bolivar, Mo. and one for Bethel and one for 
Ouachita. Make these on your typewriter and seal them 
up one at a time as you make them and address them, as 
you might send the petition to one place when it was in- 
tended for another and that would never do. The petition 
is very brief as you will see. Just enough to call attention 
to the letters. Send the original letters to Ouachita, 
Arkadelphia to Prof. J. W. Conger, for the Trustees. 
Send copies to Compton for Bethel College and E. R. 
Graham for his endorsement and have him give it to Presi- 
dent Burks for the Trustees. * * * I carried off the 
laurels at the Minister's Institute at Arkadelphia. Regards 
to all. Yours, 

"Ben M. Bogard." 



Landmark Secession 1Y3 

(Following are the forms he drew up recommending him- 
self which Moore was to sign and mail to these respective 
colleges. — Ed.:) 

"Eldorado Springs, Mo., 



"To Trustees Ouachita College — Gentlemen: I call 
your attention to Eld. Ben M. Bogard, of Searcy, Ark. 
He deserves the title of Doctor of Divinity and Ouachita 
College should confer that title. I call your especial atten- 
tion the enclosed letters which I have received from repre- 
sentative Baptist preachers, who with one consent recom- 
mend that he have the Doctorate. Dr. J. B. Moody, of 
Hot Springs, Eld. J. G. Doyle, Little Eock, J. S. Thomas 
Searcy have written in such strong terms that I especially 
call your attention to them. Eld. T. T. Eaton, D. D. 
L. L. D., W. P. Harvey, D. D., J. S. Coleman, D. D. 
L. L. D., etc., of Kentucky, where Mr Bogard is favorably 
known, recommend that he have the title. I think the 
commendations sufficient, and the college would be doing 
itself an honor besides honoring a worthy man. Very 
respectfully, R. A. Moore, Pastor, Berean Church, Eldorado 
Springs." 

(Of the next form we give only that part which differs 
somewhat from the foregoing. — Ed.) 



"Eldora Springs, Mo. 



"To Trustees Bethel College; Gentlemen: I call your 
attention Eld. Ben. M. Bogard, of Searcy, Ark., but well 
and favorably known in Ky. He deserves the title of 
Doctor of Divinity and Bethel College should give it to 



174 Qrapeshot and Canister 

him. He was a student of Bethel College but did not 
graduate. His career has been far in advance of almost 
any of the full graduates of his age. I refer you to, etc. 
Those who know Mr. Bogard best give him the strongest 
commendation. Bethel College would not only be honor- 
ing a worthy man in giving Mr. Bogard the title but would 
help herself by getting the influence of such a man to be 
used in favor of the college, when but for such a recog- 
nition he might not remember the college. You need, I 
should think, some strong influence in your favor west of 
the Mississippi. Very respectfully, 

"R. A. Moore, Pastor, etc." 

(If I owed a man any amount of self -laudation and he 
wouldn't take that, I would schedule on him. — Ed.) 

"Eldorado Springs, Mo. 



"To the Trustees of Southwest Baptist College, Bolivar Mo., 
"Gentlemen: I call your attention to Elder Ben M. 
Bogard, of Searcy, Ark., but formerly of Kentucky and 
for four years pastor at Charleston, Mo. He deserves the 
title of Doctor of Divinity, and I petition you to give him 
the title. I call your attention to copies of letters which 
I have received from representative Baptist preachers, who 
know Mr. Bogard well. These with one consent recom- 
mend that he receive the Doctorate. Very respectfully, 

"R. A. Moore." 

"Searcy, Ark., May 4-1901. 

"Pres. J. W. Conger, Arkadelphia, Ark. 
"Dear Prof. Conger : Your letter received. Firstly : I 



Landmark Secession 175 

am not a candidate for the degree of D. D. Of course, if 
the degree is conferred, without my solicitation, I shall 
esteem it an honor not to be refused. Secondly : I am not 
a full graduate but have the degree of B. L. with three 
years work in Latin and Greek, etc. I completed the 
work in English and Philosophy at Bethel College, Rus- 
sellville, Ky., and lacked one year of completing the B. A. 
degree. The records of the college I suppose will show 
what I say but as the faculty has been changed entirely 
*ince I was in college, I refer you to, etc. I am a native 
of Ky. and am thirty-three years old. Of course, I under- 
stand that Trustees do about what the Faculty ask them to 
do. But my interest in you and your work will by no 
means diminish if you cannot conscientiously recommend 
the degree. I did not know that such a movement was on 
foot until a few days ago when Bro. Moore sent me the 
letters which he had received recommending the degree. 
I appreciate the interest he has taken in me. * * * 
When you need me command me. Very truly yours, 

"Ben M. Bogard/' 

(We should say that Bogard's sense of accuracy must 
have been slightly impaired, or his bump of ministerial 
prevarication abnormally developed. — Ed.) 



Here Dr. A. J. Barton, then Editor Baptist Advance, 



save 



"Between the date of this letter and the next, 'dr* 

Bogard had learned — as comes out in the letter of June 7 — 
that Pres. Conger had had a conversation in which the 
^ts as to the origin of his spontaneous demand 'that he 



176 Grapeshot and Canister 

have the Doctorate' (were brought out. — Ed.). Being 
aware that Pres. Conger knew something of the facts, his 
mind underwent a rapid and radical change as to Ouachita, 
which he formerly valued so highly that the original letters 
must be sent there." (See Baptist Advance, 3-18-1903, 
p. 8.) But finally: 

"Searcy, Ark., May 20, 1901. 

"Pres. J. W. Conger, Arkadelphia, Ark. 

"My Dear Brother: After mature deliberation I have 
determined that I do not want the title of D. D. from 
Ouachita. My reasons are as follows: 

"1. If I am to get the title at all, I would rather it would 
come from a college of greater reputation, and which has 
been recognized as an established institution. In saying 
this I do not mean to underestimate Ouachita for I hold the 
college in high esteem, and rejoice in its prosperity. 

"2. My position on current questions among Baptists is 
such that such men as A. J. Barton, W. E. Atkinson, 
H. H. Street, and N. B. Pittman, would be probably 
turned against the college if the degree should be conferred 
on me. I do not want to injure the school in the estima- 
tion of even one of my enemies, and I especially would not 
like to injure it in the eyes of my brethren. These brethren 
'have it in' for me, and it has occurred to me that they 
might be turned against Ouachita if such a thing was done. 
I have nothing but kind feelings toward them, and would 
not want to cause them to lose any sleep over such a matter. 
If I am worthy of the degree it will come from another 
source anyway. So I write to request you not to present 
the matter to the Board of Trustees at all. In addition to 



Landmark Secession 177 

this I should be oblige to you if you will send to me the 
letters which Bro. Moore sent you together with the letters 
which I sent you, and all correspondence concerning the 
matter. I want this done so that by no means the matter 
may be presented to the Trustees. I should have to refuse 
the title if it should be conferred by Ouachita any way. 
* * * Very truly yours, 

"Ben M. Bogard." 

That this same Ben M. Bogard should persist in mis- 
representing Convention Baptists in his paper, and refuse 
to allow any correction whatever, will be no surprise to our 
readers in the light of this correspondence. To show that 
Bogard has been unscrupulous (he may have improved 
some lately ; we have not seen the last issue of the Arkansas 
Baptist) when his own interest was at stake, we transcribe a 
letter from a Brother who has known Bogard for years, and 
was intimately associated with him. This letter shows that 
Bogard would not spare even his own friends when he 
wanted to carry his point. The letter follows : 

"Lancaster, Tex., 7-13, 1910. 
"Dear Bro. Autry: In answer to this letter will say, 
there Avas a stuffing of the ballot in the Fulton Baptist 
church in 1894. Ben M. Bogard told some of us he was 
going to nominate J. N. Hall but he didn't. After W. S. 
Eoney nominated Hall, Bogard nominated B. F. Hyde. 
Hall got 22 votes and Hyde got 23. I made a motion to 
make it unanimous. On counting the members present 
there were only 34. We found the 22 that voted for Hall. 
Of the eleven votes STUFFED IN, 7 were in a hand- 






178 Grapeshot and Canister 

writing exactly like Bogard's. The church rescinded the 
illegal act and Hyde never became pastor. Yes, Eoney, 
I am sure, though now a 'Gospel Missioner/ so-called, will 
corroborate this statement in every particular. I have 
never known Eoney to lie and I talked with him repeat- 
edly about this while we were both living in Arkansas. 
Bogard admitted this to me in Paragould in the presence 
of E. A. Mahan and asked me not to use it against him. 
I have nc personal ill-will for Bogard. He has never been 
in my way in any sense that I ever knew about. The 
Lord bless you in all your labor to advance his cause. Prat., 

"T. C. Mahan." 

Mahan is the stuff we male men of. Was it a sincere 
conviction for truth which led these men to commence 
and to keep up this acrimonious and unbrotherly fight on 
Conventions and Boards, or was it a spirit of personal 
ambition and disappointment? We leave our readers to be 
their own judges. With hatred toward none, but charity 
for all, we give these facts to the churches of future days 
whenever and wherever this book shall be read. 

May great grace be upon the work and the workers. 



[The End.] 



BAR 10 \$M 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
NeutraHzing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER ■* PAPER PRESERVAT.ON 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



,13 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



10 19f| 





■ 


BRARY OF CONGRESS 

017 496 929 2 * 1 




11 










..".'- . : ' ■ . : .?:'. ... ■! . . \\h\'l '". 






























































